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

Re: Updated Editor's Draft of rdfa-syntax

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:51:55 +0100
Message-ID: <a707f8300709270551n77fe35fer50df69f8d1b135e2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>, "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Hi Ivan,

That's right...or at least that's what we've been assuming in all of
our discussions on this topic, but I'm not seeing that in the tests
I'm running at the moment. It's possible that the behaviour we're
concerned about is only seen when browsers like Firefox are running in
XHTML-mode--all my current tests are in HTML-mode, which might explain
why I'm not seeing the problem.

I'll keep you posted. :)

Regards,

Mark

On 27/09/2007, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> Sigh.:-( You mean: the DOM calls give you a normalized version of
> strings instead of what comes through the wire? :-( :-(
>
> Is that actually conformant behaviour for a browser when implementing
> the DOM? I wonder...
>
> Ivan
>
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > Hi Ivan,
> >
> > But just to recap what the problem is, in some browsers we simply
> > cannot get all of the data. So we had to make a decision as to whether
> > to insist that all whitespace is preserved, thus condemning
> > browser-based RDFa parsers to be non-conformant, or to define things
> > based on the lowest common denominator--normalised whitespace. We
> > chose the latter approach, and there is no way to axctually know what
> > spaces were there in the first place...unfortunately.
> >
> > So unless someone can find a cunning way to get the original mark-up
> > in browsers that normalise the whitespace, I think we're stuck.
> >
> > (I have to say though, just looking at this quickly I'm not seeing the
> > removal of any whitespace in my tests...I'll look into this a bit
> > more, but can anyone remember which browsers were giving us a
> > problem?)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 27/09/2007, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ivan Herman wrote:
> >>> _However_: I wonder whether this is the right thing to do for XML
> >>> Literals. I still think that copying the XML literal verbatim might be
> >>> the best option...
> >>>
> >> Just one argument that came to my mind: what should happen if
> >>
> >> - there is a <pre> portion in the HTML code
> >> - it is put into the RDF graph as an XML Literal
> >>
> >> I am not sure it is kosher to re-format that portion... On the other
> >> hand, I also do not think that RDFa processors should be asked to
> >> 'parse' the XHTML portion to make this type of decision...
> >>
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> And, of course, I am anxiously waiting for the
> >>>>> @instanceof finalization, to get that done, too...:-)
> >>>> working on it...
> >>>>
> >>> :-)
> >>>
> >>> I.
> >>>
> >>>> -Ben
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> --
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 12:52:05 UTC

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