- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:19:14 -0500
- To: RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote: > a small thing: I am not 100% sure who has the bug, distiller or librdfa, > but I would vote for the former :-) You seem to have more faith in my software than I do :). > Look at http://www.w3.org/2009/Talks/0115-Amsterdam-IH/Overview.html, > and you will discrepancies between the two. The difference comes from > the interpretation of that @about=[talk:] value. I interpret this as a > reference being the empty string, ie, the URI becoming the value > assigned to 'talk' via a @prefix. You seem to interpret this is fully > empty, ie, the URI of the file itself... I've logged it as a bug against librdfa, as we do need clarification and a test case: http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/librdfa/trac/ticket/20 I believe that Mark's and Shane's intention for CURIEs was to make it a simple string replacement algorithm (guys, please correct me if I'm wrong)... which would mean that you have a valid point. However, the RDFa REC currently states that a CURIE is this: curie := [ [ prefix ] ':' ] reference Which, I believe, means that this: about="[talk:]" is invalid, even if talk is specified as a valid prefix earlier in the document. When implementing librdfa, I tried to follow the specification quite literally. I think the correct behavior is to interpret about="[talk:]" as about="". Thoughts? -- manu -- Manu Sporny President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Fibers are the Future: Scaling Past 100K Concurrent Requests http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/10/21/scaling-webservices-part-2
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 15:19:51 UTC