- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:10:12 -0600
- To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
I agree completely. It is one of the reasons we are planning to update all the XHTML family specs. As to the xml-names reference in RDFa-syntax. That one's completely my fault. I pasted in the wrong thing and never checked it. Pathetic, really. Philip Taylor wrote: > 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. > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 21:11:04 UTC