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

Re: ISSUE-26: RDFa-specific vs. Earl-like Processor Status vocabulary

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:09:39 -0500
Message-ID: <4C34A6C3.3020305@aptest.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
I don't disagree Toby... but are there other RDF serializations that 
define the processor conformance for their serialization?  And if so... 
how do THEY handle exceptions?  If not... we are breaking new ground 
here.  Do you have an alternative plan for dealing with errors during 
processing?

On 7/7/2010 11:06 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:35:27 -0400
> Manu Sporny<msporny@digitalbazaar.com>  wrote:
>
>    
>> -1 to the EARL-based mechanism.
>> +1 to the simpler, RDFa-specific vocabulary.
>>      
> -1 to both.
>
> No other RDF serialisation does anything like this.
>
>    

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 16:10:39 GMT

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