W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2011

Re: ACTION-509

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 20:18:11 +0000
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Message-Id: <0449D639-4F31-43B9-865D-4F4AE39BA4ED@jenitennison.com>
To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Henry,

The words "this specification" in the sentence:

  To ensure that such fragment identifiers
  can be interpreted correctly, media type registrations for markup 
  languages that incorporate RDFa should directly or indirectly
  reference this specification.

was intended to refer to RDFa Core, not RDF Concepts (otherwise it would have said "that specification" ;)

So if it said:

  To ensure that such fragment identifiers
  can be interpreted correctly, media type registrations for markup 
  languages that incorporate RDFa should directly or indirectly
  reference this specification (RDFa Core).
 
would that make it work?

Jeni

On 2 Dec 2011, at 18:57, Henry S. Thompson wrote:

> OK, now I guess I see the problem that stalled things in October.
> 
> My view is that for FYN, _all_ the spec. of a markup language which
> explicitly allows RDFa markup can (or should) do is reference RDFa
> Core.  Requiring each such markup language spec. to reference RDF
> Concepts is neither necessary nor even appropriate.  So I'm still
> happy with my proposed wording (i.e., yours w/o the last sentence),
> along with the agreed strong underlining of the necessity for the
> HTML5 spec. itself to acknowledge RDFa (because that _is_ required for
> FYN to work):
> 
> Another way to put this is that your sentence is tautological:  The
> spec. for a language which incorporates RDFa does so by referencing
> RDFa Core, which contains the key sentence about RDF Concepts, and so
> satisfies your requirement.  And in my view it's important that the
> dependence on RDF Concepts be kept local to RDFa Core, and _not_
> spread across the universe of languages which explicitly include RDFa.
> 
> There's another reason too -- for me, it _must_ be sufficient for RDFa
> Core to reference RDF Concepts, because for languages such as XSLT and
> XML Schema which allow foreign-namespace attributes, the RDFa
> namespace (if the RDFa WG do the right thing and specify that as the
> namespace to use in such cases) must be sufficient, for FYN to work,
> via their namespace doc't to the RDFa Core spec.
> 
> ht
> -- 
>       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
> [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
> 

-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 20:18:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:41 GMT