W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > September 2007

Re: RDFa Syntax Document Ready for Review

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:07:00 +0200
Message-ID: <46F8F9E4.3000605@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Shane, Mark, Steven

thanks again:-)

As promised yesterday, I have some more comments (beyond the one I sent
yesterday[1]). None are serious and are more for clarity and editorial
issues (in contrast to [1] which, if I am right in what I am writing,
should be settled...)

For the record: Mark was absolutely right yesterday[2] in saying that my
comments in [3] should have been directly at the document itself. As I
said, I should have gone through all the mails before answering; that is
what happens when one has to handle a mail-mountain after vacations:-(.
And the current conformance section on the issue (section 4.3) works for
me as is. Ie, my comment in [3] is moot.

Further issues/comments

- Section 2.1: the URI should be in a ling for @href, too, just as for
the others

- Last example in section 2: @about is a URIorCURIE. Doesn't it mean
that the value should be about="[urn:ISBN:0091808189]"? (Two times)	

- Section 4, Conformance. I am not sure where we are these days with the
HTML profile for RDFa. I guess it is still an open issue (is it recorded
as such?) whether a profile is required or whether it is allowed but not
required (I guess the latter). Either we should have something in the
text or we should flag it with the greenish background in the current
document to say that this is still to be finalized at some point. But,
as Ralph has now secured a profile URI, we should begin to say something
about it...:-)

- Section 4, Conformance, I am not sure what exactly "whitespace
according to the rules of [CSS2]." means, but that may be my ignorance.
The only thing I found is[4], ie, the white-space property in CSS, but
that has three alternatives. Do we mean that it should behave like the
'normal' value for that CSS property? Or 'nowrap'? (I would think the
latter...)

(I see the remark of copying the relevant text into the processing rules
and I agree that would be better. But, in the meantime, I would welcome
guidance to update my implementation:-)

- Section 6. This section is set to be normative. I just raise the
alternative to refer to it as informative to reinforce that, in case of
'dispute', the processing rules have a priority...

- There seems to be a unicode encoding problem in the example of an
empty datatype and Albert Einstein

- 9.2.4, there is a question in the text on what the default value is
for instanceof. The current processing rule says for instanceof

[[[
if present, the attribute must contain one or more [curie]s,
]]]

which indeed leads to this question (and I do not have any obvious
answer). At some point I raised the alternative to allow for
instanceof="" (which can be its default value), which would have the
advantage of triggering the various relevant mechanisms in the
processing rules without leading to explicit type triplets. If we go
that way, then the the line should be changed to:

[[[
if present, the attribute may contain one or more [curie]s,
]]]


- Appendix A. I am a little bit uncertain whether we want to add this
section in this document. If we do, we may also refer to XHTML1.0
possibility as a host language (ie, allowing @lang and not only
@xml:lang), which may be more relevant in the coming period... I am not
sure, to be honest.

That is all for now...

Thanks again. As soon as I understand what the literal canonicalization
is and we also have a final version of @instanceof, I will update my
distiller to the best of my abilities...

Ivan

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Sep/0202.html
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Sep/0201.html
[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Sep/0199.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/text.html#propdef-white-space

Shane McCarron wrote:
> 
> As Ben indicated earlier, the RDFa in XHTML: Syntax document is ready
> for review.  Please read this in preparation for the face-to-face.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070921/
> 
> We look forward to your feedback on this document as well.
> 

-- 

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 Tuesday, 25 September 2007 12:06:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:52 UTC