W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > June 2009

Re: PROPOSED test cases 0127 and 0128 - empty xmlns attribute values

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:42:40 +0100
Message-ID: <ed77aa9f0906050242y5aa3afeak7a84a39b1c32a4bf@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hi Shane,

> Hrm...... I strongly disagree.   RDFa in XHTML defines, in clause 4.3, RDFa
> Processor Conformance.  Such a processor, in the context of XHTML, is an XML
> Application - not an XML parser.  It is not up to an RDFa Processor *at all*
> to raise a fatal error when it encounters a well-formedness error.  It
> *might* be up to the underlying XML parser, but I don't know if it is really
> a requirement that there be a fatal error in this case.
> This really comes down to something that has been discussed a few times, but
> perhaps not state clearly enough...  The architecture of RDFa, and in
> particular an RDFa Processor, exists independent of the underlying parsing
> model for the input - at least conceptually.  There may be requirements on
> these underlying parsers (XML well-formedness, HTML 5 parsing rules, tag
> soup rules, etc.), but those requirements are imposed on the input stream
> BEFORE that stream is seen by an RDFa Processor.  In my mind, this is true
> regardless of whether the RDFa Processor is a component of a tool chain or a
> free standing implementation.  The RDFa Syntax Recommendation makes no
> representation about how the input is *parsed*.
> Mark, Ralph, Steven - what's your opinion?

I very much agree with you.

We did try to use general notions like 'child nodes' and so on, in the
parsing rules, rather than anything more explicit, so that -- as you
say -- an RDFa parser could conceptually sit on top of SAX, a DOM, and
anything else that might come along.

So I agree that it's not our job to 'abort parsing' if the underlying
processor has not decided to do so. (Which does raise the question
about what @xmlns:xyz="" means, but I'm looking at that in a separate



Mark Birbeck, webBackplane



webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 09:43:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:32 UTC