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

ISSUE-13: Empty @typeof...let's not lose this one again [was: two side issues on blank nodes...]

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:31:49 -0400
Message-ID: <4BAE5D25.7010905@digitalbazaar.com>
To: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 03/27/2010 08:44 AM, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> It's amazing that we've discussed empty @typeof so often, yet it still
> doesn't seem to have become an erratum!

Yes, but it is a tracked issue, we'll get it this time!

ISSUE-13 - Determine if an empty @typeof attribute should create a bnode
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/13

Just to remind everyone on why this didn't become an erratum for
XHTML+RDFa 1.0:

We did discuss this several times, as Mark's super-sleuthing points out
:), but there were a few in the group that didn't think it could become
an erratum, and would rather cause a W3C Process issue. I can't remember
exactly who, but I think at least Ben, I and Shane, felt that this
changed processor behavior significantly enough that it couldn't be
considered an erratum.

We had no test cases to cover the suggested behavior and the change
would have resulted in a new mechanism to declare bnodes. I know Mark
had mentioned it several times as a possibility, but neither Shane nor I
could find language in the RDFa 1.0 REC to support the erratum argument.

So, that's why it didn't happen as an erratum. However, none of that
matters now because I think there is fairly wide agreement that
typeof="" should create a bnode.

> Anyway, could we discuss this on the next call, and get it 'errated'?

I'll make sure to put it on the next Agenda.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2010 19:32:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:06 GMT