- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:14:57 +0200
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Message-ID: <46E90DA1.9090007@w3.org>
Shane, Mark, It looks better and better:-) Here are my comments. Section 4.2: Just a heads-up: *if* the discussion on URI-s lead to the usage of a default namespace, then I presume that should become part of the evaluation context. With an extension of the processing model in 4.3 to update, possibly, that URI, too In the processing model: Step 1, item 2. I am a little bit in the dark as for the usage of @lang. AFAIK, the current DTD does not allow @lang and the validator reports an error (at least last I tried...). It is fine with me either way (although I have a slight preference for keeping @lang), but we should be consistent with the DTD. Step 2, item 1. To be ruthlessly precise, the sentence "Note that the final value of the [current object resource] is an absolute URI, " is incorrect, because it can also be a bnode! Actually, the sentence "...unique identifier or [bnode] is created" may be misleading. One could interpret it by saying that the implementatiom may choose to use, eg, a uuid urn to create a real and unique URI, instead of a bnode. Is this the intention? If that was _not_ the intention then, well, the formulation is misleading, it did misled me!:-) Step 3, item 1. "Once the triple has been created, the [recurse] flag is set to false." First of all, I think what should be said is "If any triple has been created, the [recurse] flag is set to false." (there may be more). However, the statement is not fully correct: if the literal is set via a @content attribute, than the recurse flag must stay True! Replacement text might be: "If any triple has been created and the [current element] does not contain the content attribute, then the [recurse] flag must be set to True". Step 5. At this moment, this step seems to be a direct copy of what we had before (setting the [chaining] flag at this point is meaningless:-). I guess a note should be put here (just at the beginning of Section 5) that the @instanceof question must be solved asap. (In case the TC was lost among all those emails, I think that [1] describes the different alternatives and their effect on the processing model). The current description is the same as alternative (1) in [1]. Step 6. Again to be precise: in the DOM terminology, afaik, everything is a 'Node', including attributes. Ie, what you want to say here is 'element node'. Section 5.1: you seem to have some formatting problem right before Section 5.2; I presume some of the text there should not be in a <pre>... Section 5.2.1.3: re exclusive canonicalization. I am not sure it _should_ be exclusive canonicalization of the XML content. I realize that using ex canonicalization is good if SPARQL queries are done involving that literal, but it also puts a significant burden on implementors because the usual XML tools (eg, minidom or PyXML in Python) do _not_ have this facility. Generating an XML Literal means simply copy what is in the original source verbatim. We should consider restrict ourselves to that... Section 5.2.2.4.1: I thought we would not include [_:xx] after all. Having said that... It may be o.k. to use them if we do have the [..] formalism... just a flag that this was a pending issue for a while... Final comments: - we do have now a profile for RDFa. I think this should be added to the document - do we plan to address the <ul>... issue in the next version? I am o.k. with it, but we should not let it out of our sight for too long... Ivan [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Sep/0097.html Shane McCarron wrote: > > There are still some open issues, but Mark, Steven, and I have checked > in all of our changes and I have put up a draft at > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070912/ > > Please review this document in preparation for the next task force > call. We do not plan on checking in any more edits until after we have > gotten comments and discussed them. > > Thanks for your patience. > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2007 10:14:53 UTC