- From: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:06:53 +0000
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
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