Re: FPWD Review Request: HTML+RDFa

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Shane McCarron<> wrote:
> I would not object to providing examples of extraction algorithms as
> guidance.  We already do this for CURIEs somewhere...  But I do not think it
> is a good idea to normatively define code.  The processing model in the
> current RDFa Syntax Recommendation is sufficiently precise for anyone to
> understand what must be done in the face of both conforming and
> non-conforming input.  The edge conditions people keep bringing up (what
> happens if xmlns:="" is defined, etc) are all degenerate cases of the
> general case of prefix declaration that does not match the syntax
> definition.  If it doesn't match the syntax definition, it is illegal.  If
> it is illegal, it is ignored.  What more does one need in a normative spec?

What is unclear to me is if attributes are processed according to
their namespaceURI+localName, or according to their nodeName. From a
brief look at [1] it appears only defined in terms of the Namespaces
in XML spec [2]. Which if I understand things correctly only defines
processing of XML files. Not processing of infosets or DOMs and the

Thus it seems undefined what happens if you don't have XML at all.
Which is the case for HTML. It also seems undefined if the DOM is used
to modify the document. The CURIE spec [3] seems to verify this by
saying "When CURIES are used in a non-XML host language, the host
language MUST provide a mechanism for defining the mapping from the
prefix to an IRI". Here I would interpret all of DOM/infoset/HTML as
non-XML host languages.

However, this was from a very brief scan, so it's entirely possible
that I've missed something.

/ Jonas


Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 21:35:52 UTC