- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:21:39 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Maciej, My comments below: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2009, at 12:54 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> >> However as far as I can see the spec doesn't actually define how to do >> prefix mapping in a DOM. >> >> Or am I missing something? > > You're not missing anything. It's not currently defined. This was one > of my points of feedback on the initial draft, which Manu believed he > addressed by citing section 5.4 of the XHTML+RDFa spec. But that > section does not define anything about pseudo-namespace syntax in > HTML. It's not even the section that defines the normative processing > requirements for CURIE prefix mappings in XML - that would be 5.5. And > the rules in 5.5 do not even correctly describe what should be done in > XML, as explained by be here > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0089.html> > (scroll down to Manu's mention of "Section 5.5" and my reply). Obviously, we disagree. Section 5.4 clearly indicates a normative requirement that prefixes are declared using the syntax as defined in the Namespaces in XML Recommendation. If you don't read it that way, do you have a proposed change that we could fold into the errata for the RDFa Syntax Recommendation? As to your concern about section 5.5, thanks for bringing that to our attention. I proposed errata text to clarify that wording [1] and I expect it to be approved at the next Task Force meeting. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Sep/0092.html > > Needless to say, I am not satisfied that my comment on this has been > addressed. It appears to me that the xmlns processing model for HTML > remains totally undefined. There is no "xmlns" processing model in RDFa. There is a syntax specification and rules for extracting prefix mappings from that syntax. Both of those are normative, including by reference for their relevant, defining Recommendations. > > I will be reviewing the latest Editor's Draft to see if I'm satisfied > with the resolution for other issues I raised. > > Regards, > Maciej -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 19:22:37 UTC