W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > November 2009

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

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:10:12 -0600
Message-ID: <4AF33F34.9060106@aptest.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:05 UTC