W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:59:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA5F288.3000702@intertwingly.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: nathan@webr3.org, public-html@w3.org, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
On 04/13/2011 02:21 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> On 04/13/2011 01:46 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>> Do they advise to send the prefix declaration, yes, do they require it
>>> when consuming, no. The likes of Facebook/Opengraph are only concerned
>>> with consuming their own og:/fb: data at the moment, if or when a time
>>> comes that they wish to consider other RDFa data too, then the prefix
>>> declarations will become far more important to their consuming software.
>> I read this as "respect the prefix declaration if present, otherwise recover
>> in a predictable manner".  For now, I will simply note that this is slightly
>> different than what James originally outlined[1]:
>>> Tools processing RDFa in HTML MUST NOT use any in-document mechanism
>>> to bind prefixes to URIs, but instead MUST only recognise prefixes as
>>> they are registered
>> Either or both approaches can be proposed should this issue be reopened, but
>> I will encourage people to work together to converge on as few proposals as
>> is practical, and for any such proposal be consistent with the new
>> information that is provided.
>> In short, is there any evidence that there is "a path by which reality can
>> be made to match"[2] what James outlined?  I.e., is this something that tool
>> builder would be willing to do?  Or would they prefer what Nathan has
>> outlined above?
> At least currently, what Nathan has outlined (or at least, your
> summary of it) doesn't match reality.  Existing tools don't pay
> attention to the prefix declaration, or lack of one, at all in at
> least some cases, instead just opting to look for literal matches for
> well-known prefixes.  Declaring your prefix to be something else or
> declaring something else to use the well-known prefix will both fail
> in these tools.

Based on what I have read so far, it is clear that at least some tools 
would have to change no matter what is proposed.  Some tools work per 
the RDFa spec.  Some work as James described.  That's not in dispute. 
Clearly some existing tools and/or the spec have a bug.

What is speculative at this point is what tools would be willing to do. 
  Hard information on that point would be helpful at this point.  With 
that information in hand, we can evaluate proposals on what, if 
anything, should change in the spec.

> ~TJ

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 18:59:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:12 UTC