- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:28:32 -0400
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- CC: "public-html-data-tf@w3.org" <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:11 AM, "Philip Jägenstedt" <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:51:56 +0200, Gregg Kellogg > <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 21, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:42:32 +0200, HTML Data Task Force Issue Tracker >>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Should the Microdata to RDF spec parallel RDFa and generate an >>>> rdf:XMLLiteral in this case? >>> >>> I'd say no. XML is not part of the microdata model, and it would be very >>> bad indeed if some toolchains saw this as plain text while others saw it >>> as a DOM fragment. >> >> Regarding different interpretations by tool chains, given that we seem >> to be going to a parameterized transformation algorithm, this would be >> only one area where different tools might generate different results. >> I'd rather see us come up with unambiguous transformation rules that did >> not rely on the state of different provided to a parser, but that might >> need to be left to another group that would take on this work at the end >> of the TF. > > I don't understand, what is a "parameterized transformation algorithm" and > in what other areas do we expect incompatible implementation of microdata? > Surely we expect that the spec(s) will leave no room for interpretation or > incompatibility, such that all implementations will do exactly the same > thing? Jeni has said that this group should provide options for performing an RDF transformation that another WG might resolve. This _could_ include vocabulary-specific rules and runtime parameters with default behavior. As I've said, my preference would be no vocabulary-specific or parameter differences, but writing it this way, at least for now, provides a way of talking about and maybe testing those behaviors. Personally, I'd like to resolve the URI generation rules in favor of the flat-namespace algorithm in my current ED. I don't particularly care for having different processing rules for different vocabularies. Gregg > -- > Philip Jägenstedt > Core Developer > Opera Software >
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 13:29:21 UTC