- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:41:53 -0700
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:30 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > I think the frustration level in this thread is rising to the point > that > we're not going to be able to make good progress if it continues much > longer, Actually, it seems to me that the thread was doing a good job of getting down to the core issues, and in expressing that in terms of concrete problems. > so let me propose a set of solutions and then have Jonas, Henri > and Maciej weigh in on whether or not they think that the set of > solutions will address their issues: Your proposed actions below sound good to me. I will note also that, despite some claims to the contrary, the XHTML+RDFa processing model is already defined in terms of traversing a DOM, while not requiring implementations to actually have a DOM, as long as they behave in an equivalent way. So I think what you describe below can be done without a lot of additional spec complexity. You don't have to define a whole new form of the processing model for non-DOM implementations, you can just fill in some of the details in the model that XHTML+RDFa already uses. > > * Normatively define how a DOM-based implementation should work for > those parts that people feel are not clear. This would only clarify > what DOM-based implementations should do and would not require > implementations to use a DOM to be viewed as a conformant RDFa > processor. > * Normatively define how a DOM-based implementation should create > prefix mappings. This would only clarify what DOM-based > implementations should do and would not require implementations to > use a DOM to be viewed as a conformant RDFa processor. > * Add test cases for every single one of Philip Taylors xmlns: tests > as well as any other tests that he has in his test suite where > implementations differ in the triples that they produce. Philip, > can you help me produce these tests? > * If any of Philip Taylor's tests cannot be traced back to language in > the HTML+RDFa, XHTML+RDFa spec, or other normative spec in an > unambiguous way, then we must add language /somewhere/ to clarify > why a test case operates in a certain manner. > > To execute on these goals, we can do the following: > > 1. Discuss what language should be created or altered in an upcoming > RDFa Task Force telecon. > 2. Edit the HTML+RDFa specification to add the normative language for > DOM-based implementations. > 3. Get all of Philip's tests migrated into the RDFa Test Suite. > 4. Map each of Philip's tests to normative language in a > specification, > and if there is no normative language, create normative language. > > Jonas, Henri, Maciej - does this seem like a good way forward? Is > there > any other issue that was raised that should have a bullet item? If so, > please summarize the issue in 1-2 sentences - don't elaborate on it if > it was already covered in this discussion. I'm speaking with Henri > tomorrow morning at 9am, and will try to get some further > understanding > of his non-DOM (XOM) issues. > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture > http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/ >
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 05:59:21 UTC