W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2008

Re: ISSUE-96

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:22:41 -0700
Message-Id: <1BFD2951-39A0-4273-B58A-95E2DAE61DA2@adida.net>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org


Getting back to an issue we discussed on the list a few weeks ago  
(trying to clear our ISSUES plate).

Regarding ISSUE-96, as per [1], you said:

> -1
> We've gone to great lengths to allow RDFa parsers to generate extra
> triples if they like, the only condition being that they don't appear
> in the [default graph]. So I used the terms "no effect on processing"
> and "act as if the value simply did not exist" as a way to try to
> indicate that as long as the full processing rules were observed, you
> could do what you liked.

My preference would be that, instead of wording every rule such that  
it leaves the door open to additional triples, we clarify in the  
appropriate paragraph that all rules pertain to the [default graph]  
only. Then, we make the language tight and precise, as Shane  
mentioned. We open the door to additional triples definitively just  

Specifically, in this case we would switch to "MUST be ignored".

I prefer this strong wording because a first-time implementor will  
want inflexible directions to follow blindly. Only once they're  
experts will they appreciate the flexibility.

What do you think?


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0085.html
Received on Friday, 21 March 2008 03:22:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:56 UTC