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

Re: Review of XHTML+RDFa 1.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xhtml-rdfa-20100803/) (Tom)

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:07:12 -0500
Message-ID: <4CCEE5B0.40702@aptest.com>
To: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
CC: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
My comments inline.  Mark, there are two that I could use your input on!

On 10/29/2010 6:01 AM, Thomas Steiner wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please find my (for some comments a bit pedantic) review of the latest
> XHTML+RDFa 1.1 document at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xhtml-rdfa-20100803/. I guess as this
> document is on its final steps towards LAST CALL status, there are no
> real show-stopping issues to be expected, and I didn't find them
> neither. I have raised some questions with regards to allowed
> attributes (see below) or recommended best practices, but me raising
> them is probably more an issue of me not being into the details enough
> than the document not being detailed enough. Still I thought I'd raise
> them. I did not thoroughly check the XML schema and DTD annexes
> following Manu's remark [1] in his email.
>
> Best,
> Tom
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0293.html
>
> === Comment 0
> Abstract
> [...]
> This document is intended for authors who want to create XHTML-Family
> [CONSIDER WRITING LOWER-CASE "-FAMILY" INSTEAD] documents that embed
> rich semantic markup.
> ===

XHTML Family is a defined term in XHTML M12N.  But it should not be 
hyphenated.  Nice catch!
> === Comment 1
> Status of This Document
> [...]
> Deprecation of the use of @version [CAN YOU GIVE A SHORT REASON HERE
> ALREADY, EVEN IF IT'S GIVEN LATER?]
> ===

Sure.

> === Comment 2
> Status of This Document
> [...]
> Removed the collection of TERMs from this document - instead deferring
> the definitions in a default RDFa Profile document [IS THIS DOCUMENT
> PUBLISHED YET? IF SO, REFERENCE IT. PROBABLY SHOULD BE
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab AS IN COMMENT 7].
> ===

Sure - it is in the regular vocab and it is published.

> === Comment 3
> Status of This Document
> [...]
> This document was published by the RDFa Working Group as a Working
> Draft. This document is intended to become a W3C Recommendation.
> [REPETITION OF "THIS DOCUMENT", BAD STYLE.]
> ===

Yeah...   This comes from the document generator.  I will try to get 
consensus on fixing it (this generator ReSpec.js is used in TONS of 
documents).

> === Comment 4
> 1. Introduction
> XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is an XHTML family [SEE COMMENT 0] markup language.
> ===

Fixed.

> === Comment 5
> 2.1 Document Conformance
> [...]
> XHTML+RDFa documents should be labeled [CONSIDER WRITING "SERVED"
> INSTEAD OF "LABELED".] with the Internet Media Type
> "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236].
> ===

We say 'labeled' because documents can be delivered in lots of ways - 
not just from a server.

> === Comment 6
> 2.1 Document Conformance
> [...]
> A conforming RDFa Processor must not use the value of @version  to
> effect its processing. [WHAT MECHANISM IS RECOMMENDED BY THE WG
> INSTEAD? THE PREFERRED VERSIONING MECHANISM REMAINS UNCLEAR.]
> ===

There is no versioning mechanism other than a DOCTYPE.  And yes, this is 
a problem in my mind.

> === Comment 7
> 3. Additional RDFa Processing Rules
> [...]
> The default collection of terms is defined in [MISSING LINK HERE, OR
> GRAMMATICAL ERROR.] via an RDFa Profile document at
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab.
> ===

Typo - fixed.

> === Comment 8
> 3. Additional RDFa Processing Rules
> [...]
> The base can be set using the base element as defined in
> [XHTML-MODULARIZATION11-2e]. [ARE @BASE or @XML:BASE VALID OPTIONS AS
> WELL (SORRY IF THIS IS A STUPID QUESTION.)?]
> ===

There is no @base, and @xml:base is not legal.  XHTML M12N does not 
support it.

> === Comment 9
> 3. Additional RDFa Processing Rules
> [...]
> The current language can be set using either the @lang  or @xml :lang
> attributes. [IS THERE A PREFERRED OPTION (I'M AWARE OF THE PRECEDENCE
> RULES DEFINED LATER ON. JUST ASKING.)?]
> ===

No, there is no preference.

> === Comment 10
> 3. Additional RDFa Processing Rules
> [...]
> In section 6.5, processing step 6, if no URI is provided by a resource
> attribute, then first check to see if the element is the head or body
> element. [DOES THE ORDER MATTER? SHOULD THE BODY ELEMENT BE CHECKED
> BEFORE THE HEAD ELEMENT?]
> ===

This is legacy text and I don't think it matters.  Mark, can you elaborate?

> === Comment 11
> 3. Additional RDFa Processing Rules
> [...]
> In section 6.5, processing step 7, if no URI is provided, then first
> check to see if the element is the head or body element. [SEE COMMENT
> 10]
> ===

Mark?

> === Comment 12
> 5. Metainformation Attributes Module
> [...]
> This collection allows elements to be annotated with metadata
> throughout an XHTML-family [SEE COMMENT 4, 0] document.
> ===

Fixed.

Thanks!

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 16:07:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:50 UTC