- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:43:20 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:37 +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Sep 29, 2009, at 04:47, Mark Birbeck wrote: > > > My recollection of the TF's discussion around @version is that it was > > a way to allow RDFa consumers to decide whether they wanted to parse a > > page or not. > > It seems that you failed to allow it. A quick search through http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ > for the string "version" suggests that http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ > doesn't define any processing for @version. Therefore, there's > nothing in the RDFa in XHTML spec that allows an RDFa processor to > halt processing depending on @version and fail to extract the triples > encoded in the document. But there's also nothing in the syntax document that requires it to *start* processing. So an RDFa processor can simply opt to not begin processing, depending on whatever factors it wants. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 12:44:11 UTC