W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2008

thoughts on reviewers' comments

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:08:20 -0800
Message-ID: <47AB5724.3050904@adida.net>
To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Hi all,

Since I'm away starting this weekend, I thought I would write down some 
thoughts on our syntax review so that I'm not blocking any work next week.

I'll address only substantive comments that require a decisions (you 
don't need my thoughts on typos or clear suggestions for improvements):

Diego's comments [1] are great, and mostly uncontroversial. One issue 

> * Section 5.5, Rule 9 (and also the last two paragraphs of Section
> this is not a comment, but a question: must the parser descend
> recursively when a non-XML literal has been created by concatenating
> text nodes? I couldn't find a test case for this. In other words, I'm
> not sure which should be the expected outcome of parsing the following
> mark-up:
> <p about="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Albert_Einstein">
>   <span property="foaf:name" datatype="">
>      Albert
>      <strong property="foaf:familyName">Einstein</strong>
>   </span>
> </p>

This is an interesting one. I'm torn on this issue. I think we should 
still parse down the tree no matter what, I don't think a change in data 
type should change the state of parsing.

Ed's comments [2]:

> perhaps pointing at the reference implementation would help people
> like me?

I don't think we should have *one* reference implementation: we'd have 
  to all review it deeply and live with whatever bugs we miss as "part 
of the spec." Spec'ing via the test cases seems best.

> Is non-XHTML RDFa discussed in any other documents that would be worth
> linking to here?

I would vote for no forward pointers in our spec, so we should clarify 
this language.

> 5.2
> Is it worth mentioning that 'direction' needs to be captured in the
> list of incomplete triples?

My implementation keeps track of rel and rev separately, so this is a 
useful comment I think.

> -- 5.5.5 Is the issue with Chained bnodes with no real statements captured as an Issue in the SWD Issue Tracker?

I don't think it needs to be: the same useless comments can be written 
in RDF/XML, so if people want to write them.... why not parse them?

> -- s/rel=license/rel=xh:license/ 

license is a reserved word, so this isn't necessary.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0197.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0014.html
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2008 19:08:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:26 UTC