W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: ISSUE-70: PROPOSED response to Jeni

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:45:55 -0600
Message-ID: <4D5FD7A3.10009@aptest.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
No.  Didn't you see my follow up email where I said 'ignore this, I am 
an idiot' more or less?  I will resend once I get over being so stupid.

On 2/19/2011 2:05 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> I am now absolutely and formally messed up...
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 21:06 , Shane McCarron wrote:
> [snip]
>> The short answer is "yes".  We will add text about this in the section on RDFa Processor Conformance.  In addition, in order to improve the story about this going forward, we will introduce another RDFa attribute, @rdfa, which will can be used by documents that wish to ensure their content is interpreted against a specific version of the RDFa Recommendation(s).
>>
>> The rules such a processor must follow are:
>>
>>   1. If there is an @rdfa attribute on the root element of the
>>      document, examine its value.  If the value maps to a defined
>>      version string for RDFa, process the document according to that
>>      version's rules.
>>   2. If there is an @version attribute on the root element of the
>>      document, and that attribute has the value "XHTML+RDFa 1.0",
>>      process the document according to the rules from RDFa Syntax 1.0
>>      (for backward compatibility).
>>   3. Otherwise, process the document according to the rules defined in
>>      this specification (RDFa Core 1.1).
>>
> Is it really true that we _agreed_ in the usage of @rdfa at the end? I thought we decided, after all, to drop it in favour of using @version with a possible value of RDFa 1.1.
>
> What are then the allowed values for @rdfa? Is it '1.0' and '1.1'?
>
> Not that I am not _against_ this, it is just that my memory says otherwise.
>
> See also:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-02-17#resolution_2
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>> Note that there is no REQUIREMENT that a document use this announcement mechanism.  It is just available.  In the absence of any sort of announcement, the default behavior is to use the current best practice as defined in the current version of RDFa.
>>
>>> 4. If not, what modes of processing do I have to offer in order to best enable users of the processor to correctly interpret RDFa 1.0 and RDFa 1.1 web pages in the way their authors intended?
>> See above.
>>
>> The working group hopes that these comments and changes will address your Last Call comment.  Please respond to this mail at your earliest convenience.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/
>>
>> -- 
>> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
>> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
>>
>>
>>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Saturday, 19 February 2011 14:47:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:51 UTC