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

Re: Status of ISSUE-126 and ISSUE-139

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:05:48 +0200
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
Message-Id: <91ACEF8A-A1F5-485D-8A94-C73C7D69DDF9@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

On Sep 3, 2012, at 16:43 , Manu Sporny wrote:

> On 09/03/2012 12:12 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> The issue isn't about whether or not to throw warnings... it is about
> whether or not an HTML5+RDFa conformance checker may throw /errors/ if
> it sees xmlns:.

Ah, sorry!

_For HTML5_, I am not hostile going that far, simply because I can imagine many HTML5 tools now or in the future, would indeed have problem with xmlns.

Ivan

> 
> -- 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/
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 05:06:13 UTC

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