Re: Status of ISSUE-126 and ISSUE-139

Per issue 126: I agree with your conclusions, ie, xmlns may issue warnings. It is a deprecated and not-advised feature anyway, particularly at odd with HTML5, so this is perfectly justified imho. B.t.w., my implementation does generate such warnings already (when warnings are requested, that is, not by default).

Per issue 139: i never hit a problem with that, not in the HTML5 parser either. Ie, I always had to handle base and xml:base myself, ie, it was up to my implementation to ignore or to use it. I am not sure what is happening.

Ivan

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

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



On 3 Sep 2012, at 03:30, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> Hi Alex, Mike, all,
> 
> I was asked to write up a summary of the current status of ISSUE-126 and
> ISSUE-139. Alex, Mike, your feedback on the items below would be
> appreciated.
> 
> ISSUE-126: Can xmlns: be reported as a warning?
> -----------------------------------------------
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/126
> 
> Mike Smith would like us to state this in the HTML+RDFa spec:
> 
> "Conformance checkers may report the use of xmlns: as an error."
> 
> This is a change from what the spec says right now, which is:
> 
> "Conformance checkers must accept attribute names that have a case
> insensitive prefix matching "xmlns:" as conforming. Conformance checkers
> should generate warnings noting that the use of xmlns: is deprecated."
> 
> The base reason for asking for this change is that it is technically
> difficult to implement what we have in the spec right now in the
> validator.nu conformance checker at W3C. The SAX implementation that it
> is using doesn't expose xmlns: declarations to the RDFa processor. This
> seems strange to me, as well as being a bug in the toolchain that the
> new validator is using. Still, we have an implementer requesting that
> the spec be changed due to implementation impossibility for this
> particular (heavily used) toolchain.
> 
> I'd be fine with making the change, as the Web Developer world/HTML5 has
> moved away from xmlns: declarations. Note that this only applies to
> conformance checkers... RDFa processors must still process the xmlns:
> declaration.
> 
> Mike, does this capture your current stance on this issue?
> 
> ISSUE-139: Honor xml:base in XHTML5
> -----------------------------------
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/139
> 
> This issue is an implementation concern raised by Alex Milowski.
> Specifically, the use of xml:base is transparent to an HTML DOM-based
> processor. This means that processing 'xml:base' cannot be ignored, and
> the base URL is modified by the browser and the DOM-based interface has
> no mechanism of detecting if xml:base was used at any point in the
> document.
> 
> This seems strange to me. We should do some testing, but if this is
> true, then DOM-based processors don't have the capability of ignoring
> xml:base. We may need to add an errata for this issue for XHTML+RDFa 1.1.
> 
> Alex, does this capture your current stance on this issue?
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Which is better - RDFa Lite or Microdata?
> http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/
>

Received on Monday, 3 September 2012 04:13:02 UTC