W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Resolving remaining issues in the issue tracker

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:49:57 -0500
Message-ID: <50EE2C55.4040406@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 01/07/2013 03:01 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> So I believe XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is all right as it is, and the 
> formulation added by Gregg to HTML5+RDFa is the right one.

I disagree. We have a resolution that disagrees with the statement
above. :)

We got rid of these special rules because it is unnecessary in many of
the use cases and is confusing to authors. We got rid of them because we
wanted to reduce the number of magic subjects in RDFa 1.1. If we want to
change this at this point, we can do that per the process. We'll have to
re-open the issue because we closed it with a resolution:

RESOLVED: Modify HTML+RDFa and XHTML+RDFa to modify processing
steps #5 and #6 from assuming an empty @about value to assuming
that new subject is set to the parent object.

-- manu

PS: I removed Gregg's text in the latest HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec because it
was not aligned with the resolution that we had made before. I also
think that the text in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is wrong and we need an errata on
it, unless we're going to re-open this issue and discuss it again.

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Problem with RDF and Nuclear Power
http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 02:50:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:58 UTC