Re: FPWD Review Request: HTML+RDFa

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:

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2009 15:52:30 UTC