W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > September 2009

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:59:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4AB90263.7030109@gmx.de>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Shane McCarron wrote:
> ...
> Because, Henri, we don't grok the problem.  I am slowly beginning to 
> understand that this might be due to our talking past one another.  The 
> W3C has a Recommendation that defines the Syntax of RDFa *input* and the 
> extraction of RDF triples from that *input*.  It defines this as an 
> extension to XHTML.   XHTML Modularization provides the structure for a 
> host language.  The Recommendation is carefully vague about how that 
> input is parsed because that is properly the job of the host language.
> ...

It appears that one *real* problem was mentioned; the case where the 
HTML source document is invalid, and the HTML parser rearranges 
elements, before a DOM-based RDFa extractor would even see it (the table 

This *is* a problem, in particular because prefix mappings that appear 
to be in scope looking at the source won't be anymore once the data is 
processed by the HTML processor.

If this can't be resolved somehow (and I have no idea how), the only 
resort seems to state that the result for documents like these are 
undefined. (*)

BR, Julian

(*) It would be nice if the information whether the source was 
re-arranged by the HTML processor would be available for scripts.
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:05 UTC