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

Responses to 2nd round of comments on RDFa Syntax by Diego

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:39:51 -0500
Message-ID: <47B8FE07.2020202@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Diego Berrueta <diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org>
CC: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Diego had sent in two official comments on the Last Call ready draft
earlier today. The comments were about this document:

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080217/

I am making a public note of it by posting those comments to the RDFa
mailing list.

Mark has made changes to address those comments. Responses with pointers
to the diff can be found below:

> * Having two variables with the same name and different scope may 
> lead to confusions. This mainly applies to the "list of incomplete
> triples", which exist both in the context and as a local variable.
> For instance, can you tell which one is referred (twice) in Rule 8? 
> ((Btw, in the second box of that rule, I think "[incomplete triples]"
> should be replaced with "[LIST OF incomplete triples]")).
> My suggestion
> is to rename the local variable to "list of NEW incomplete triples" 
> in order to remove any source of ambiguity.

The distinction is now made between the [local list of incomplete
triples] and the [list of incomplete triples] that come from the
[evaluation context].

See Steps #8 and #10:

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080217/rdfa-syntax-diff.html#sec_5.5.

> * Rule 11 contains the clause "If the process of recursion returns 
> 'true'...", but this value not computed until Rule 12. Therefore,
> I wonder if that the actual meaning would be better captured by
> this phrase: "If there are child elements of the current element, 
> and the process of recursion returns 'true' for ANY of the child 
> elements...". Note that in this case, Rule 12 may have to be modified 
> accordingly, in particular this fragment: "or a value of 'true' was 
> returned from the recursion step". In other words: you should make 
> clear how the individual return values from the child elements are 
> composed after Rule 10. 

The prose has been updated to address the concerns that you list above.
The text is very detailed now, explaining the purpose of the recursion
return value and how it is used:

See Step #10, #11, and #12:

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080217/rdfa-syntax-diff.html#sec_5.5.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: RDFa Basics in 8 minutes (video)
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/01/07/rdfa-basics/
Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 03:40:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 February 2008 03:40:06 GMT