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/) (Knud)

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:07:21 -0500
Message-ID: <4CCEE5B9.20204@aptest.com>
To: Knud Hinnerk Möller <knud.moeller@deri.org>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Got distracted last night - my comments are in line.

On 10/31/2010 2:52 PM, Knud Hinnerk Möller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here is my review of the current version of XHTML-RDFa 1.1. I didn't spot any deep problems, most of my comments are editorial or requests for clarification. Here we go:
>
> ----------
> Section "Status of This Document"
>
> - "This" in the header should probably be lowercase?

There is a lot of confusion about this at the W3C.  That header is 
automatically generated.... so once I get a decision from someone, it 
will get fixed everywhere.  Thanks for pointing this out.

> - "5. Remove the collection of TERMs from this document - instead deferring the definitions in a default RDFa Profile document." - does this refer to Sect. 9.3. "@rel/@rev attribute values" in RDFA-SYNTAX? If so, then these are now defined in http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/ - but that is not the default RDFa Profile document, isn't it? If not, then which terms does this sentence refer to?

That URI is the prefix that gets used when a CURIE with an empty prefix 
is referenced (e.g., rel=':next') in RDFa Core.  It is ALSO, 
coincidentally, the RDFa Profile for the XHTML+RDFa markup language.

> Section 2.1:
>
> - criterion 1: "The document must conform to the constraints expressed in the schemas in Appendix A ... and Appendix B ..." - this is very nitpicky, but shouldn't this read "either Appendix A ... or Appendix B", depending on whether you want to use DTD or XML Schema to validate?

Actually, no.  Basically, any conforming document must validated using 
any defined schema implementation.  This comes from XHTML M12N - we just 
inherit these requirements.

> - what is the significance of the two examples? The first one seems superfluous.

I got rid of the first example.

> Section 3:
>
> - the references to "6.5" are wrong. I assume this is intended to reference 7.5 in RDFA-CORE?

Yep - good catch!

> - in the last two bullet points, it is unclear to me what exactly "resource attribute" refers to. Not @resource, I guess? My interpretation is that it means "if no URI is provided by any of {@about, @src, @resource, @href}". Note that the same confusing text is also used in RDFA-CORE. This should be expressed more clearly.

I added text in both bullets.

> Section 5:
>
> - I'm a little confused regarding the situation of @profile:
>   - RDFA-CORE lists @profile as one of the RDFa attributes.
>   - RDFA-CORE says: "The attributes defined in this specification must be included in the content model of the Host Language."
>   - @profile is not included in the Metainformation Attributes Module in Sect. 5
>   - @profile is not defined in either XHTML+RDFa XML Schema nor DTD
>   - @profile is also not defined in the XHTML1.1 Schema or DTD, if I'm not mistaken
>   - so how does the content model of XHTML+RDFa 1.1 include @profile?

@profile is defined in XHTML M12N, and is included in XHTML 1.1 and 
XHTML+RDFa 1.1.  In its current definition @profile is only legal on the 
head element, which is of course useless for our purposes.  I have 
updated the DTD and the Schema implementation so that @profile is legal 
everywhere in XHTML+RDFa 1.1.

Nice work!


> ----------
>
> Cheers,
> Knud
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Knud Möller, PhD
> +353 - 91 - 495086
> Smile Group: http://smile.deri.ie
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>    National University of Ireland, Galway
> Institiúid Taighde na Fiontraíochta Digití
>    Ollscoil na hÉireann, Gaillimh
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 16:07:57 UTC

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