- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:45:03 -0600
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Maybe I just missed something. Ben, do you believe there is a resolution that we REQUIRE an XHTML+RDFa document to specify an @profile value, and that such a value is the preferred/exclusive mechanism for identifying documents that need RDFa processing? Regardless, I think my proposed additional wording for the Processor conformance section is valid. We want to require that conforming processors parse documents we want them to parse, and we want to permit them to parse other documents too. Do you disagree? Ben Adida wrote: > Shane McCarron wrote: > >> I completely agree that we have enough work on our plate. However, I DO >> NOT believe the group has agreed on a portable, universal announcement >> mechanism. Mark's mail has brought that issue into sharp relief for me. >> > > That's not what I said, though. > > I said we have resolved that there would be an RDFa profile and that it > would be a legitimate, but not required, mechanism for flagging RDFa > content. There is no doubt that this much is resolved. > > The @profile attribute is not specific to GRDDL, so reasoning based on > GRDDL is not a sufficient enough reason to bring this back on the table. > > -Ben > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 22:45:18 UTC