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. > Can you tell me why the xhtml group does not trust the 5th edition? Is it all the extra unicode stuff? Ivan > Philip Taylor wrote: >> Mark Birbeck wrote: >>> My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after >>> "xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well >>> see if the document was well-formed.) >> >> The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is >> likely to cause problems :-) >> >> It's a U+0140, which is permitted by the latest Rec of XML at >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-NameChar> but forbidden (not >> well-formed) according to the previous Rec at >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#NT-NameChar>. >> >> Most XML implementations follow the old 4th Edition, so they'll >> consider the test case ill-formed. I guess RDFa is meant to be based >> on the latest edition (since I don't see anything that looks like >> intentional references to old versions), but I'm not at all certain >> about that. So this test case is an attempt to clarify the situation. >> > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 09:04:47 UTC