Re: PROPOSAL: Errata text regarding defining a prefix of '_'

Shane McCarron wrote:
> Just curious - how does it issue a warning?  As part of the graph?
>

Yes. I generate an extra bnode with predicates referring to a warning
type plus one with a literal for the warning text

Formally this is not generated into the default graph, though, at the
end, I merge all of them together before serialization

Ivan

> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Looks fine to me.
>>
>> (I was unsure on the call and I checked: my implementation already does
>> that and issues a warning in case of reusing '_')
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> ivan
>>
>> Shane McCarron wrote:
>>  
>>> At the 12 November meeting, the group agreed that the RDFa Syntax
>>> Specification reserves the prefix of '_', but that it could be clearer
>>> about this.  We agreed to put a clarification in the Errata.  I propose
>>> the following text:
>>>
>>> In sections 5.4.5 and 7 the specification indicates that the prefix '_'
>>> is reserved and is used to create / reference blank nodes (bnodes).
>>> Because this prefix is reserved, authors SHOULD NOT declare a mapping
>>> for the prefix '_' and conforming processors MUST NOT incorporate such a
>>> prefix mapping into the 'list of URI mappings' as defined in section
>>> 5.5.
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>
>>   
> 

-- 

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