- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:48:30 +0100
- To: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
To those that are left, is there any point in having a call? I'm not sure there is much we can do. Regards, Mark On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Ben Adida<ben@adida.net> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I thought I'd be able to make it to the call this week, but last minute > stuff before a short 4th of july trip are making it impossible, so > regrets from me. > > I'll write some thoughts on Manu's points below after the (US) holiday > weekend :) > > -Ben > > Manu Sporny wrote: >> We had a fairly productive discussion last week (draft minutes[1]) >> regarding the most pressing issues surrounding HTML+RDFa. A brief >> summary of the findings can be found here: >> >> http://rdfa.info/wiki/rdfa-in-html-issues#RDFa_Task_Force_Discussion_Order >> >> Regrets for the call tomorrow, I won't have Internet access. >> >> Some quick thoughts on the next set of issues: >> >> == Processing of xmlns:* in non-XML languages == >> >> I think that we should phase out xmlns:* for the following reasons: >> >> * There is a case-sensitivity issue when used in HTML4 markup. >> * It's technically feasible, but has led to a number of >> namespace rants and "polluting HTML4/5 with namespaces" rants. >> >> We could replace xmlns:* with @prefix or Mark's upcoming @token >> proposal. xmlns:* should exist for backwards compatibility, but we could >> suggest that it may be phased out in future versions of RDFa and should >> not be used for new markup. >> >> == Case sensitivity for xmlns: attributes and prefixes in attribute >> values == >> >> As Shane has mentioned previously, we should immediately update the >> XHTML+RDFa errata document to say that all prefixes specified by xmlns: >> should be lower-case. In other words, authors SHOULD NOT use mixed case >> for prefixes. Therefore, doing the following would be frowned upon: >> >> xmlns:Foo or xmlns:FooBar or xmlns:FOOBAR >> >> the suggested markup should be: >> >> xmlns:foo or xmlns:foobar or xmlns:foobar >> >> I agree with Shane's assessment: I don't think we need to change the >> parsing rules to lower-case prefix names in xmlns:. We should provide >> guidance to authors so that if they want to create markup that works in >> both HTML and XHTML, they should not mix case if xmlns: is used. >> >> This point isn't moot if we transition away from using xmlns:* - we will >> still need to provide guidance for those that continue to use xmlns:* in >> XHTML1.1 documents. >> >> = Use of regular CURIEs in @rel = >> >> I believe that Julian Reschke has raised this issue several times. I >> don't remember the technical issue and I remember Ben stating clearly >> that there isn't a technical issue. >> >> I don't have any input on this at the present time. Clearly, if a >> technical issue exists with CURIEs in @rel - we must address it. >> >> = Script-based modification of DOM = >> >> If we include language to address this issue in an XYZ+RDFa document, >> the language should be minimal. >> >> The only time that RDFa enters the picture is when the >> (X)HTML/Javascript model/control layer serializes/streams the (X)HTML >> document into/to a tree model and hands it off to the RDFa parser. The >> RDFa parser shouldn't have any knowledge of how the tree model is >> generated - but we shouldn't be strict about making this point. >> >> Re-parsing can be done whenever a DOM changed happens, on a X second >> timeout basis, or at the leisure of the browser - for example, when CPU >> usage is low. >> >> If this is a question of /when/ the RDFa parser should be called, our >> answer should be "whenever the application layer wants to run the RDFa >> parser". >> >> If this is a question of /how/ the RDFa parser should be called, we >> shouldn't go to great lengths to specify how that is done. For example, >> if speed optimizations for incremental DOM parsing of an HTML document >> (versus complete parsing of the HTML document) are desired - the >> implementation is up to the implementer of the incremental RDFa parser >> (which would need specific hooks into the DOM layer and vice versa). >> >> The important part is that the triples that are generated via an >> incremental RDFa parser should be exactly the same as if the document >> was parsed fully. I don't think we need to specify much more than that. >> >> -- manu >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/25-rdfa-minutes.html >> > > > -- Mark Birbeck, webBackplane mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, London, EC2A 4RR)
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 14:49:17 UTC