Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

Shane McCarron wrote:
> Actually...  XHTML+RDFa is based upon XHTML M12N.  And M12N references 
> 4th Edition explicitly.  All XHTML Family Recs are being updated to 
> refer to 4th Edition in the coming weeks.  We don't trust 5th Edition.  
> So.... I am not sure what that means for this test case.

Okay, sounds good - if the intent is that everyone should use the 4th 
Edition instead, and it's made clear in the specs, then I'm happy with 
that (and test case 154 will be invalid, or could be turned into a 
negative test case of some kind).

Looking at the current normative references from RDFa:

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204 (Third Edition) as [XML-LANG].

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes 
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/ which includes 
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml dated 10 February 1998 (either First 
Edition if you go by the date, or Fifth if you go by URL).

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/ which includes 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006 (Second Edition).

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xhtml-modularization-20081008/ which 
includes http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816 (Fourth Edition)

So the normative reference chains lead to at least four out of five 
editions in various ways, and I don't think it's currently clear that 
any particular edition is blessed as being the one to use for RDFa 
processors. That wasn't a problem until the 5th Edition came along and 
redefined well-formedness, but it'd be nice to see the references tidied 
up a bit now.

-- 
Philip Taylor
pjt47@cam.ac.uk

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 21:07:30 UTC