Mark Birbeck wrote: > >> ... >> >> It would be nice if these people could use RDFa (e.g. by >> copying-and-pasting CC licensing data), and still have their page handled >> robustly (i.e. still being able to extract the CC data) despite having this >> kind of bogus markup elsewhere in their pages. Fatal errors would be bad >> (they'd make it hard for someone to incrementally adopt RDFa because they'd >> have to fix all these other issues in their markup first), but anything else >> (ignoring the attribute, undeclaring the prefix, treating it as a relative >> URI, etc) seems reasonable to me. > > Yes, definitely. > >From an implementation's point of view, this is of course a bit more complicated. In my case, I use an external xml parser by default, that simply refuses parsing the whole thing (in line with the draconian error handling of xml). As an implementer, I am at the mercy of that tool and I would not like to be forced to write an xml parser myself... Of course, I can use the HTML5 parser (which I can fall back to) which lets the empty xmlns attribute through. And we can then ignore it (which I actually do). What this means that the precise reaction on this case might depend on the XHTML vs. HTML5 discussion:-( Ivan > Regards, > > Mark > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 09:22:46 UTC