- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:56:20 +0300
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On Sep 4, 2009, at 23:08, Shane McCarron wrote: > But I do not think it is a good idea to normatively define code. It's a good idea to define the processing model in detail, though. > 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. I thought Philip showed this isn't the case. > 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? You need to say explicitly what is ignored. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 7 September 2009 10:57:13 UTC