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

TC 142 (Was: Minutes of the October 22 meeting)

From: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:19:45 +0100
Message-ID: <4AE17531.9070507@cam.ac.uk>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:
>    Manu: TC 142
> 
>    Shane: This is a bit pathological, but that's fine...
> 
>    Mark: If you wanted to make statements about XML, this would be
>    fine.
>    ... Can you have an element that has <xml:test>... in RDF/XML?
> 
>    [...]
> 
>    Ivan: Strictly speaking, this is illegal...
> 
>    Shane: I think it's reserved, not illegal.
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: Shane to look at XML spec and see if xml: is
>    illegal in RDF/XML re: TC 142 [recorded in
>    [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]

My understanding from <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#xmlReserved>:

The definition of the xmlns prefix says "Element names MUST NOT have the 
prefix xmlns". The definition of the xml prefix does not say that, so 
it's not illegal.

"All other prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l, in 
any case combination, are reserved" (i.e. other than xml and xmlns), so 
the xml prefix is not reserved either.

(RDF/XML is not relevant to the validity of the test case anyway - the 
test just uses RDFa-in-XHTML syntax, and SPARQL syntax. Any RDF/XML 
syntax is an implementation detail and should have no effect on the 
processing of the test case. (It's relevant for the existence of the 
test case, though, since the test case is designed to look for bugs in 
implementations.))

-- 
Philip Taylor
pjt47@cam.ac.uk
Received on Friday, 23 October 2009 09:20:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 October 2009 09:20:14 GMT