Re: Proposed Wording Change - Processing step 9

I apologize - this is for some proposed future version of RDFa (e.g. 
RDFa Syntax 1.1)  I had an action item from ages ago to write up the 
exact text so we could consider it concretely instead of in the 
abstract.  The original idea came from Mark Birbeck (thanks Mark!)

Toby Inkster wrote:
> On 3 Sep 2009, at 17:15, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I propose that we change step 9 so that the *default* behavior is 
>> that a "plain literal" is generated, as opposed to the default 
>> behavior today that an "XML Literal" is generated.
> While I agree that this is better default behaviour, it is a big 
> change from the current specification. Are you proposing this as an 
> errata, or for a future version of RDFa?
> If the former, I think it's too big a change.
> If the latter, it sounds like a good idea, but it would need to be 
> decided if processors would be expected to apply the old rule for RDFa 
> 1.0 and the new rule for RDFa 1.1? If so, what would be the definitive 
> way of determining which to use? Using the XHTML @version attribute 
> and defaulting to 1.1 when it's not present makes sense for XHTML+RDFa 
> 1.0, but perhaps not so much for other host languages such as SVG and 
> ODF.
This is a good point - we have discussed it in the past.  Announcement 
and behavior when announcement is not used is something that we would 
need to lock down.  I imagine there will be other features of some 
future RDFa 1.1 that would also turn on or off depending on such an 
announcement.  That whole topic is separate from this one change.

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet:

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 16:56:48 UTC