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

Re: Different treatment of @resource between RDFa 1.0 and 1.1

From: Alan Jeffrey <ajeffrey@bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:40:41 -0500
Message-ID: <4F9569E9.303@bell-labs.com>
To: Oskar Welzl <lists@welzl.info>
CC: "Jeffrey, Alan S A (Alan)" <alan.jeffrey@alcatel-lucent.com>, "public-rdfa@w3.org" <public-rdfa@w3.org>
On 04/22/2012 03:46 PM, Oskar Welzl wrote:
>> but the 1.1 distiller generates different output (the @about value
>> has changed):
>
> two distillers, three tries, two results:

Ah, that's interesting, I hadn't tried it in HTML5 mode. How odd.

>> Digging through the 1.1 spec (Sec 7.5, processing rule 5) it looks like
>> the distiller is doing the right thing: the @resource attribute only
>> sets the current object resource when there's an @rel, @rev or @property
>> attribute.
>
> This is just for my own understanding, my last post here shows I have
> problems understanding this myself, but: The way I read it, the
> @resource in your example *does* set a new subject:

Yes, it sets a "new subject" (7.5, 5, alt 2) but not a "current object 
resource". In the case where there is a @property (7.5, 5, alt 1) or 
@rel (7.5, 6) the "current object resource" gets set to the @resource.

> According to 7.5, 6.:
> <link rel="ex:bar" href="http://example.com/baz"/>
> contains @rel (that's why we're in 6.) but nothing that would match a
> "set new subject"-rule; so we keep "http://example.com/foo" from the
> parent as the subject. The object resource is taken from @href according
> to this processing rule.
> (Grant's table: [Current object resource] in "rel | rev mode")

Ah, you may be right, I didn't read (7.5, 13) correctly. When 
recursively processing nodes "the parent object is set to value of 
current object resource, if non-null, or the value of new subject, if 
non-null, or ..." In this case, the "current object resource" is null, 
so the parent object should be set to the "new subject", which in this 
case is <http://example.com/foo>, not <>.

So perhaps this is a bug with the distiller rather than a change in the 
spec? (This would make me happy, as it would mean no change to our RDFa!)

> Cheers,
> Oskar

A.
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 14:41:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2012 14:41:22 GMT