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

Re: ISSUE-23 (profile-order): @profile order - RDFa Core 1.1 versus HTML 4.01 and XMDP [RDFa 1.1 Core]

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 12:04:40 +0100
Message-ID: <h2r640dd5061005070404y4ee66c76k6e6498f043b3ada1@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDFa Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Toby,

Nicely spotted.

I think your reverse-order suggestion makes a lot of sense.

Regards,

Mark

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:00 AM, RDFa Working Group Issue Tracker
<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
> ISSUE-23 (profile-order): @profile order - RDFa Core 1.1 versus HTML 4.01 and XMDP [RDFa 1.1 Core]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/23
>
> Raised by: Toby Inkster
> On product: RDFa 1.1 Core
>
> In HTML 4.01 only the first URI in the list of URIs in the @profile attribute is considered significant.
>
> The XMDP spec (used in Microformats) in a deliberately over-liberal interpretation expands that to say that the first URI in @profile is the *most* significant; with the others being progressively less significant. In practise, this means that if the same term is defined by two profiles in the same attribute, then the profile listed earlier in the attribute "wins".
>
> RDFa Core 1.1 reverses that by allowing the second profile to override the first.
>
> In practise, I don't think this difference is going to effect implementations at all, but it would be nice for RDFa 1.1 to say that multiple profiles in a single attribute should be processed in reverse order. Another possibility could be to reverse the order only in the XHTML host language, but I like that idea less.
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 May 2010 11:05:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:47 UTC