- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:51:14 -0500
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- 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>
Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Sep 4, 2009, at 23:08, Shane McCarron wrote: > > >> 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. I don't think he has, no. I am writing a detailed message about that. > >> 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. Again, I disagree. Or rather, I think we do. The rules for CURIE and URI processing in section 5.4 indicate that anything that is not a legal CURIE (in the context of RDFa) or URI are ignored. URI is tightly defined by the appropriate RFC. Legal CURIE syntax is tightly defined in the RDFa Syntax specification. I can't imagine what more one might say. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2009 15:52:30 UTC