ISSUE-227 Re: Agenda Topic / Issue: Clarify the meaning of "ignore" with respect to attributes that have no legal value

And yes.  This DOES conflict with something I said earlier.  With regard 
to issue 277 ( I said 
that @datatype should be interpreted as "".  I wasn't thinking about it 
the right way when I sent out that note and I was mistaken.  I think a 
processor MUST behave as if there were no @datatype at all in that case.

Shane McCarron wrote:
> One issue that has come up recently is that we use inconsistent 
> language in the RDFa Syntax Recommendation when discussing illegal 
> values in attributes (thanks Philip!).
> Basically, in the current Recommendation we talk about attributes 
> being ignored when the value(s) are illegal.  I believe that when we 
> say this (and we say it in a couple of different ways), we ALWAYS mean:
> "When an attribute has no legal values, a conforming RDFa Processor 
> MUST act as if the attribute were not present at all.  The processor 
> MUST NOT act as if the attribute were present, but with the empty 
> string as its value."
> So, for example,
> <a rel="blah:blah" href="file.html">something</a>
> Would never generate triple, because the prefix "blah" is not defined, 
> so the system MUST act as if there was no @rel at all.
> <span property="blah:blah" datatype="blah:blah">some content</span>
> Would also generate no triples, since there would effectively be no 
> @property AND no @datatype attributes.
> I don't think there is any disagreement on this point, but it is 
> important and perhaps we should get a formal resolution on the books 
> and a note in the errata document just so we eliminate this one area 
> of potential confusion.
> Ben, please put this on the agenda for Thursday.

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 20:34:08 UTC