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: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:07:56 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0909221607r13c77427o4e9a7e9d0670e4e5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Mark Birbeck
<mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com> wrote:
>  * before doing any processing on an element, extract any prefix
> mappings, and add them to
>   the 'current context';

This is precisely what Jonas and co. are talking about, though.  It
seems to be being proposed that the correct way to find a mapping is
to look at the source code of the document so you can find "xlmns:foo"
no matter what the document may munge that to.  But at this point
you're not looking at source, you're walking a tree.

If you're not looking at source, then every "RDFa in FOO"
recommendation has to specify precisely how to extract the information
from the tree, as different implementations will expose this
information in different ways.  That's where we run into problems -
this isn't being specified, and XML and HTML expose this in different
ways depending on what tools you use.

If you are looking at source, of course, then every "RDFA in FOO"
recommendation has to specify precisely how to parse source into a
tree, which is very likely *much* more complex than the other option.

What you can't do, though, is mix levels and claim you're working on a
tree at one point and on source at another.  That doesn't work, and
it's simply impossible in many circumstances, such as a javascript
RDFa parser who only sees the DOM.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 23:08:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 September 2009 23:08:53 GMT