Re: FPWD Review Request: HTML+RDFa

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Section 2 doesn't say if it's normative or informative. It looks
> informative.

Thanks for the review, Henri. :)

I've integrated all of your comments into the wiki[1]. I saw all of your
points as valid and needing to be addressed via spec language.

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:07:17 +0200, Manu Sporny
> <> wrote:
>> E-mail reviews can be sent to this mailing list, or the RDFa Task Force
>> mailing list (cc'ed).
> So is it the idea to leave the issue of xmlns and xmlns:<prefix> being
> different in the DOM generated from a text/html byte stream and the DOM
> generated from a text/xml byte stream unaddressed? 

At a high-level, the idea is to address every technical issue.

RDFa does not depend on xmlns, so that is a non-issue (unless I'm
missing something).

RDFa does depend on xmlns:<prefix>, but only to the point where the RDFa
processor must be able to extract the prefix/value pair from the DOM in
some way. Would specifying the mechanism on how to extract it from an
HTML DOM as well as an XHTML DOM address the issue?

> I don't see how that
> can work without more text because xmlns and xmlns:<prefix> as generated
> from a text/html byte stream do not carry the namespace semantics xmlns
> and xmlns:<prefix> from a text/xml bytes stream do. (They are not in a
> namespace.)

I've added your comment to the wiki[1], noting that the issue should be
addressed. We could provide implementation advice in an informative
section... would this address your concern? Or is your concern that
there is no way to implement this requirement?

-- manu


Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture

Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 14:48:14 UTC