- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:45:48 +0300
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- 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 Sep 29, 2009, at 15:43, Toby Inkster wrote:
> 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.
It seems like a spec bug if main() { exit 0; } is a conforming RDFa
processor.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 12:46:38 UTC