- From: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 18:14:01 +0100
- To: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Seeing as people are implementing RDFa parsers for text/html, I guess it would be good to have a specification that says how they should work. http://www3.aptest.com/standards/rdfa-html/ doesn't answer the questions I'd want answered (e.g. in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009May/0102.html), and HTML 4 seems to make it impossible to express an answer. Some existing RDFa-in-text/html parsers are based on document models that closely match the DOM-like model used by HTML 5 (e.g. browser-based JS implementations, and some Python ones using an html5lib DOM, and maybe others), and the model used by HTML 5 can be implemented in a variety of other ways (e.g. unbuffered SAX) so it's not too restrictive, and so it seems like the most useful way to define RDFa-in-text/html processing. I've not seen anyone else working on this, so I started writing a rough draft at <http://philip.html5.org/docs/rdfa/>. Some of it is copied from the RDFa-in-XHTML specification, and just tweaked to use some new definitions and to share concepts (like base and lang) with HTML 5 and to cope with text/html parsing (for xmlns:* attributes). The CURIE definitions are new, since I didn't see any existing document that defined them in an appropriate way. There are several unresolved design issues (e.g. handling of case-sensitivity, use of xmlns:* vs other mechanisms that cause fewer problems, etc) - I haven't intended to make any decisions on such issues, I've just attempted to define the behaviour with sufficient detail that it should make those issues visible. The current draft is far from complete or correct, but it shows roughly the way I'd like to have things defined (and I hope it's roughly the way that HTML5/WHATWG people would like it to be defined, in order to support implementers and to be testable), and maybe it could end up being useful for something, so I'm just throwing it out here for discussion. -- Philip Taylor pjt47@cam.ac.uk
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 17:14:36 UTC