Re: Request to publish HTML+RDFa (draft 3) as FPWD

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Section 2 is marked as normative although its content is devoid of
> normative statements.

Your most recent issues have been added to the HTML+RDFa issues list:

> I observe that four out of the six deferred issues depend on the two
> issues you left open. (I disagree with the characterization of the
> deferred issues as "implementation details".)

I'd like to setup a time that we could discuss this over the phone as I
want to make sure that I understand the issues that you see moving
forward. You've raised the XOM issue multiple times and we have yet to
see a XOM implementation of RDFa, so it is a valid concern.

In general, we could say that a parser, model or other view of the
document that doesn't allow one to retrieve namespace declarations is
not capable of implementing RDFa. If XOM falls under this class of
parsers, then it is not capable of implementing RDFa. However, I don't
know much about XOM, so I'd have to do a namespaces implementation
before I could answer your question... and that will take time. However,
even if that were done, I don't know if it answers your question. So,
when would be a good time to talk over the phone?

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture

Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 15:41:31 UTC