W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Error in test or error in spec? ISSUE-133

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:26:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CABp3FN+O3hvjUtPTdKSLuZFS8Xp_UZikHccHktukbjsohxqKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
> What did was:
>
> - created a separate 'product' in the tracker for CR comments
> - added this issue, so that we can properly track it
> - I have made the editorial changes on the recspec version *on my machine*. Shane, I am not 100% sure what your workflow is for the CR publication (next Tuesday), so I did not want to commit this on CVS. Please tell me how to proceed...
>

I would love to see these changes.  Can you cut-n-paste your proposed
text into an e-mail?

I just ran into this problem today testing my RDFa implementation and
came to similar, but not completely the same, conclusions.  It seems
to me that the specification needs at least to say that the "typed
resource" is set to the value of the "new subject" established from
the @about attribute's presence.  That can simply be stated by adding
a bullet to the second part of 5.1 about the typed resource that says:

  * otherwise, by using the IRI from @about, if present ....

but I'm not following why the current object resource should not be
set.  Do we have an example that demonstrates why that should not be
set when @about and @typeof co-occur?


-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 18:27:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:20 GMT