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

Re: ISSUE-147 (preserve markup by default): RDFa Processors should preserve markup by default [RDFa 1.1 in HTML5]

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:25:30 +0100
Message-Id: <E81CE736-1BD7-41E3-9103-E1CCF7E8D593@w3.org>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com>
To: "shane@aptest.com" <shane@aptest.com>
I agree with you and Gregg. The issue on XML Literal has been discussed a lot. It wasn't an obvious issue, but the decision has been made.

Procedurally, it is correct to say that this WG has the right to define the behaviour of HTML5+RDFa differently for XML Literals and/or for HTML literals. However, the discussions for RDFa Core, as well as for XHTML1+RDFa, obviously took into account the most important prospective deployment of RDFa, i.e., HTML5, too. I also do not see any new evidence in this thread that would justify essentially reopening this issue, and introducing a major incompatibility between XHTML1, SVG, etc., and HTML5. I am sorry, Andreas, but I am definitely not in favour of this change.

Ivan

---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



On 28 Dec 2012, at 22:26, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote:

> I agree with Gregg - this issue was debated ad nauseam two years ago.  At that time we made what we thought was a reasonable decision based upon how semantic data is consumed in the marketplace.  At that same time we said that there should be an HTMLLiteral datatype that could be emitted, but that we didn't know if there would be one.  If there were, it could be used in HTML5+RDFa.  Has such a type emerged?
> 
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 2012, at 11:03 AM, RDFa Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > ISSUE-147 (preserve markup by default): RDFa Processors should preserve markup by default [RDFa 1.1 in HTML5]
>> >
>> > http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/147
>> >
>> > Raised by: Manu Sporny
>> > On product: RDFa 1.1 in HTML5
>> >
>> > This issue was raised by Sebastian Heath:
>> >
>> > HTML5 and its variants such as XHTML5 provide a rich set of elements that content creators use to indicate many aspects of the texts they are representing. When processing RDF in attributes, the "RDFa 1.1 in HTML5" specification [1] should by default require preservation of all intentional markup. This is good practice. In particular, the working group should not assume that elements in content marked with the @property attribute are there by mistake. Nor should the replication of namespaces in the output be considered garbage.
>> >
>> > Full reasoning is here:
>> >
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Dec/0074.html
>> >
>> > This issue is being re-opened because of the following statements:
>> >
>> > "This is good practice. In particular, the working group should not assume that elements in content marked with the @property attribute are there by mistake. Nor should the replication of namespaces in the output be considered garbage."
>> >
>> > The working group should re-examine if:
>> >
>> > 1) Preservation of markup is good practice for RDFa Processors.
>> > 2) The inclusion of HTML markup by authors was not a mistake and the feature is causing problems in RDFa 1.1 based on 6+ months of deployment experience.
>> > 3) The replication of namespaces should be considered garbage (I don't think the WG ever said this, and the assertion is most likely due to a mis-communication at some point).
>> > 4) Changing the rules at this point would cause an undue burden on authors and implementers due to conflicting rules between RDFa Core and HTML+RDFa.
>> 
>> If we were to do anything, it would only be for HTML5+RDFa, not XHTML1+RDFa or RDFa 1.1, as that ship has sailed. Furthermore, if this were to change for HTML5+RDFa, rdf:HTML would be a more appropriate datatype then rdf:XMLLiteral IMO.
>> 
>> Relating to 4), changing the rules now would be a major incompatibility with RDFa 1.1, which is explicit for this across all host language, so I think it's probably too late. The rules were changed when RDFa Core 1.1 became a REC, changing them back for HTML+RDFa would make it even more confusing.
>> 
>> This was resolved in May of 2010 [1]; it was also specifically called out in the charter for the RDF Web Applications Working Group [2].
>> 
>> Gregg
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-05-13#resolution_2
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/rdfwa-wg-charter
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Shane P. McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Saturday, 29 December 2012 13:26:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:57 UTC