W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2009

Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:00:10 -0400
Message-ID: <49B7293A.508@intertwingly.net>
To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Rob Sayre wrote:
> On 3/5/09 10:04 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> +cc: Chris Wilson
>>
>> Rob Sayre wrote:
>>> The biggest problem is that HTML parsers must reparent elements. This
>>> would make discerning in-scope namespaces difficult.
>>
>> This argument doesn't resonate with me.  If properly spec'ed there 
>> certainly would be cases where the answer wasn't obvious; but if the 
>> spec simply were to chose one interpretation in such cases, then it 
>> doesn't seem to me that it would be difficult to implement to that 
>> spec interoperably.
> 
> I agree that it is possible to effectively specify something confusing. 
> The question is whether the specified behavior will create a prisoner's 
> dilemma. If enough users won't understand the specification, and create 
> content that unintentionally violates it, that's what will happen. I 
> know you are aware of most of these examples, but I'll include them here 
> for others:
> 
> 1.) http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardgiles/109523955/
> 2.) http://www.feedparser.org
> 3.) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174351#c46
>      
> http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/41476/trunk/WebCore/xml/XMLHttpRequest.cpp
>      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174351#c60
> 
> 4.) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=287793 (feed now 
> contains "o:p" in escaped HTML... victory?)
>      http://raeldor.blogspot.com/atom.xml
> 
> 5.) 
> http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/uriloader/exthandler/nsExternalHelperAppService.cpp#2539 
> 
> 6.) 
> http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2009/02/23/preferred-atom-10-acceptable-rss/ 
> 
> 7.) 
> http://thresholdstate.com/threshold/4163/rss-feeds-valid-useful-or-accurate
> 
> You get the idea.

Amusingly, the punch line here is:

"Ironically, the Feed Validator issues a warning about the 
double-encoded case—the only one that worked correctly in both readers."

They key word being "both".

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 03:00:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:13 GMT