Re: FPWD Review Request: HTML+RDFa

On Sep 4, 2009, at 23:08, Shane McCarron wrote:

> But I do not think it is a good idea to normatively define code.

It's a good idea to define the processing model in detail, though.

> The processing model in the current RDFa Syntax Recommendation is  
> sufficiently precise for anyone to understand what must be done in  
> the face of both conforming and non-conforming input.

I thought Philip showed this isn't the case.

> The edge conditions people keep bringing up (what happens if  
> xmlns:="" is defined, etc) are all degenerate cases of the general  
> case of prefix declaration that does not match the syntax  
> definition.  If it doesn't match the syntax definition, it is  
> illegal.  If it is illegal, it is ignored.  What more does one need  
> in a normative spec?

You need to say explicitly what is ignored.

Henri Sivonen

Received on Monday, 7 September 2009 10:57:13 UTC