Re: FPWD Review Request: HTML+RDFa

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:47:32 +0200, Manu Sporny  
<msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> So is it the idea to leave the issue of xmlns and xmlns:<prefix> being
>> different in the DOM generated from a text/html byte stream and the DOM
>> generated from a text/xml byte stream unaddressed?
>
> At a high-level, the idea is to address every technical issue.

Good.


> RDFa does not depend on xmlns, so that is a non-issue (unless I'm
> missing something).
>
> RDFa does depend on xmlns:<prefix>, but only to the point where the RDFa
> processor must be able to extract the prefix/value pair from the DOM in
> some way. Would specifying the mechanism on how to extract it from an
> HTML DOM as well as an XHTML DOM address the issue?

I don't think so as it would violate one of the more important design  
principles the HTML WG has, namely that of DOM consistency.

It also seems somewhat like a layering violation to care about xmlns  
attributes rather than namespace/prefix mappings. I wonder why that has  
not come up as an issue with RDFa in XHTML.


>> I don't see how that
>> can work without more text because xmlns and xmlns:<prefix> as generated
>> from a text/html byte stream do not carry the namespace semantics xmlns
>> and xmlns:<prefix> from a text/xml bytes stream do. (They are not in a
>> namespace.)
>
> I've added your comment to the wiki[1], noting that the issue should be
> addressed. We could provide implementation advice in an informative
> section... would this address your concern? Or is your concern that
> there is no way to implement this requirement?

Non-normative user agent requirements would not address my concern, no.  
I'm not sure what requirement you are referring to here.


> [1]http://rdfa.info/wiki/Html5-rdfa-wd-issues


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 10:01:30 UTC