- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:26:54 -0700
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, 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>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote: > > > Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> The question is if there's a defined precise way to do it. As I >> showed, there are at least 5 different ways to do it, which one is >> correct. >> >> I think I found the code that extracts prefix mappings, and it appears >> that it uses method 3. So my question is, why is this more correct >> than any of the other 4 methods i proposed? >> > > It's not. Modulo the issue with collisions, which I have already > acknowledged as an edge case we should specify. It doesn't matter. Its an > implementation choice, and it is based upon the implementor's knowledge of > the environment they are targeting. My implementation, for example, uses > NONE of those methods. But I am convinced it would render the same prefix > mappings. It really, really, really doesn't matter. We aren't making this > up. It certainly matters. If for example if method 1 or 2 were used then no prefix mappings would be found at all in the DOM output from a HTML parser. So it really *does* matter how you do prefix mapping. And as far as DOM 2 goes, I think 1 or 2 are the intuitive solutions so if we're not using those then I *really* think it's important to specify so. In any case, I think I've spent enough time on this issue. I can't really articulate the problem any more than I have. I hope this issue is solved by the time last call rolls around. As previously stated, I support FPWD publication of the HTML+RDFa document, so I hope that no further action is needed on my part. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 21:27:55 UTC