W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Handling of missing @profile

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:17:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4C5AF235.8000707@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 08/03/10 22:40, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> I'm confused about wording in the latest heartbeat draft of RDFa Core 1.1:
> 
> Section 7.5 step 2 indicates that if /any/ referenced RDFa Profile is
> not available, then the current element and it's children MUST NOT be
> processed.
> 
> Section 9 outlines steps to process profiles and indicates that if a
> retrieval fails to continue with the next URI.
> 
> Presuming that 7.5 step 2 is the intention, then the steps in section 9
> would seem to be pointless, as the effect of any more processing would
> be thrown away.
> 
> Consider the following
> 
> <body profile="http://im-not-here http://im-here"> ... </body>
> 
> This would fail attempting to process the first profile, and according
> the 7.5s2 would cause the remainder of the sub-tree to not be processed,
> but according to section 9, the processor would go on to process the
> second URI and continue.

Gregg, you're correct. The current text is mis-leading. We have already
resolved that if there is a profile de-referencing error, that the
subtree shouldn't be processed. It was implied that fetching the rest of
the profiles would be useless because the processor isn't going to
process the subtree.

We should make this clear in the document. I think this is an editorial
change, Shane - do you concur, and if so, can you make the change?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Myth Busting Web Stacks - PHP is Faster Than You Think
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/06/12/myth-busting-php/2/
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2010 17:47:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT