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

Re: Official Response to ISSUE-132 from RDF Web Apps WG

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:26:26 -0400
Message-ID: <4F98CE72.3030609@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Hi Henri,

As stated in the previous response to ISSUE-130, I had pinged you on
#WHATWG IRC about this discussion earlier this month, promising you a
formal response:

http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120405#l-964

Again, apologies in the tardiness of this e-mail.

The RDF Web Apps Working Group discussed your reply to the official
response to ISSUE-130 and ISSUE-132. The full text of the discussion can
be seen here:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-04-05#Responses_to_Henri_Sivonen

More below...

On 03/15/2012 08:50 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Manu
> Sporny<msporny@digitalbazaar.com>  wrote:
>> RESOLVED: The @src attribute is only allowed on elements defined by
>> the Host Language. (non-substantive)
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-02-23#resolution_2
>>
>> Expect this clarification in the next version of the HTML+RDFa
>> specification. This is a non-substantive finding for RDFa Core
>> 1.1, XHTML+RDFa 1.1 and HTML+RDFa 1.1.
>>
>> Feedback --------
>>
>> Since this is an official Working Group response to your issue, we
>> would appreciate it if you responded to this e-mail and let us know
>> if the decision made by the group is acceptable to you as soon as
>> possible.
>
> Thank you for the change.
>
> You may record me as "agree" with the decision for disposition of
> comments purposes but I disagree on the change being
> "non-substantive".

Noted. We discussed your "substantive" claim in more detail to make sure
that the group agreed on the changes that we had made being
non-substantive to RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1. Specifically, I
should have been more clear in my response. Here is part of the
discussion (linked to above) that outlines why we believe the changes
were non-substantive:

"""
Manu Sporny: He agrees with our changes to the spec text based on the
resolution to ISSUE-132. He disagrees that it was not a substantive
change. The Working Group disagrees with Henri that it was a substantive
change to RDFa Core 1.1 and notes three things: 1) That RDFa Core does
not talk about what the content model of other languages should be, that
is up to the Host Language, 2) @src has always been an optional
attribute and was placed into the RDFa 1.0 specification because it was
targeted at XHTML1, once it was split out into Core, @src became an
optional attribute for the Host Language to include if it deemed
appropriate, and 3) a substantive change was made to HTML+RDFa to only
allow @href and @src on elements where it was already allowed by HTML5.
"""

followed by this proposal and resolution:

"""
RESOLVED: Regarding ISSUE-130 and ISSUE-132, the Working Group agrees
that substantive changes were made to the HTML+RDFa specification.
Substantive changes were NOT made to the RDFa Core specification.
"""

Since this is an official follow-up to your response to an issue that
you filed, we would appreciate it if you responded to this e-mail and
let us know if the findings made by the group are acceptable to you as
soon as possible.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Website for Developers Launched
http://digitalbazaar.com/2012/02/22/new-payswarm-alpha/
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 04:26:52 GMT

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