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

Re: Request to publish HTML+RDFa (draft 3) as FPWD

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:26:54 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0909221426h44879fb1n3d3b22b417542878@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> The question is if there's a defined precise way to do it. As I
>> showed, there are at least 5 different ways to do it, which one is
>> correct.
>>
>> I think I found the code that extracts prefix mappings, and it appears
>> that it uses method 3. So my question is, why is this more correct
>> than any of the other 4 methods i proposed?
>>
>
> It's not.  Modulo the issue with collisions, which I have already
> acknowledged as an edge case we should specify.  It doesn't matter.  Its an
> implementation choice, and it is based upon the implementor's knowledge of
> the environment they are targeting.  My implementation, for example, uses
> NONE of those methods.  But I am convinced it would render the same prefix
> mappings.  It really, really, really doesn't matter.  We aren't making this
> up.

It certainly matters. If for example if method 1 or 2 were used then
no prefix mappings would be found at all in the DOM output from a HTML
parser. So it really *does* matter how you do prefix mapping. And as
far as DOM 2 goes, I think 1 or 2 are the intuitive solutions so if
we're not using those then I *really* think it's important to specify
so.

In any case, I think I've spent enough time on this issue. I can't
really articulate the problem any more than I have. I hope this issue
is solved by the time last call rolls around.

As previously stated, I support FPWD publication of the HTML+RDFa
document, so I hope that no further action is needed on my part.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 21:27:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 September 2009 21:27:55 GMT