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

Official Response to ISSUE-134 from RDF Web Apps WG

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:32:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4F9A216C.5090706@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Alex,

Thank you for your public feedback on the RDFa 1.1 documents. This is an
official response from the RDF Web Apps WG to your Candidate
Recommendation issue before we enter the Proposed Recommendation phase
for the RDFa 1.1 specifications.

Your issue was tracked here:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/134

Explanation of Issue
--------------------

You were concerned about the wording in RDFa Core 1.1, Section 7.5, Step
11. Specifically the following:

"otherwise, if the @rel, @rev, and @content attributes are not
present, as a resource obtained from one of the following:"

You had suggested that we change the language to something that
clarifies that a resource is obtained from the list of options below.
Something to the effect of:

"... otherwise, if the @rel, @rev, and @content attributes are not
present, and a resource is obtained from one of the following: ..."

Working Group Decision
----------------------

The Working Group discussed the issue at length:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-04-26#ISSUE__2d_134__3a__RDFa_Core_1__2e_1__2c__Section_7__2e_5__2c__Step_11_wording_ambiguity

The primary concern that the group had was changing the language just a
few days before going into Proposed Recommendation. We were wary of
introducing a bug at the last second by changing the processing rules.
Additionally, it was noted that there are a number of interoperable
implementations at this point, a test suite to clarify any ambiguity in
the language, and at least one person that is not in the Working Group
that believes the text is acceptable as it stands right now.

While we do agree that the text could be more clear, the group couldn't
decide on wording that would be better. Additionally, the risk is that
new wording would create the same issue with another implementer. There
are two other protections against mis-implementation of this feature. We
believe that there is an example (in section 8.1.1.3.1) in the
specification that would not work if this step was mis-implemented. We
also believe that a number of tests in the test suite would not function
if this step was mis-implemented. If there isn't a test in the test
suite that covers this step, we will be sure to create one (with your
help to ensure that we are testing the correct thing).

With that rationale, the Working Group made the following decision:

RESOLVED: Regarding Section 7.5, Step 11, while the text is not as clear
as it should be, making a change at this point could be more problematic
than leaving the text as is.

Feedback
--------

Since this is an official Working Group response to your issue, and
since the group is under an extremely tight deadline, we would really
appreciate it if you responded immediately to this e-mail and let us
know if the findings and decision made by the group is 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 Friday, 27 April 2012 04:33:16 GMT

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