- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:27:19 +0100
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Reviewed document http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-spec Note: review done hurriedly, concentrating on section 4. Comments: Looks very good. Fixes the inheritance problems of last year's version. Although, with this certain idioms might become a bit wordy (e.g. an object consisting of a bnode with properties hanging off it, now is best marked up as explicit triples, one after the other, with no nesting). No change suggested. At least one issue not on list: - language tags in XML Literals, see comment 7 below. 1) encoding I think an .htaccess file such as http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20051026/.htaccess may correct some encoding issues 2) section 2.2 para before 2.2.1 Suggest s/an [RDF URI /a subject [RDF URI/ 3) end section 4.2 suggest duplicating example with both rel and rev attributes 4) 4.3.3 The behaviour of the id attribute in the context statement of the meta or link needs to be made explicit here. Such behaviour does not apply when the context statement is itself a meta or link. 5) 5.1.2.1 Minor comment: it is possible to use rdf:XMLLiteral and content attribute. However an exmaple is hard to construct, more later, possibly much later. 6) Typed literals The document seems to only allow typed literals with content attribute I think we can also permit typed literals with lexical form given by the concatenation of the text() descendents of the element. 7) lang tag in XML Literals 5.1.2.1, 4.4.1 The behaviour for literal objects, no content attribute, and no datatype attribute constructs an rdf:XMLLiteral and looses any lang tag from the context. I suggest this is a mistake, and should be fixed by inserting a span or div as appropriate. 8) plain literals from text() nodes There is no method for generating plain literals from the children text() nodes. Plain literals can only be generated using the @content attribute. This may have been desirable behaviour. No change suggested. I may add to this review tomorrow. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 15:28:07 UTC