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

On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:30 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> I think the frustration level in this thread is rising to the point  
> that
> we're not going to be able to make good progress if it continues much
> longer,

Actually, it seems to me that the thread was doing a good job of  
getting down to the core issues, and in expressing that in terms of  
concrete problems.

> so let me propose a set of solutions and then have Jonas, Henri
> and Maciej weigh in on whether or not they think that the set of
> solutions will address their issues:

Your proposed actions below sound good to me. I will note also that,  
despite some claims to the contrary, the XHTML+RDFa processing model  
is already defined in terms of traversing a DOM, while not requiring  
implementations to actually have a DOM, as long as they behave in an  
equivalent way. So I think what you describe below can be done without  
a lot of additional spec complexity. You don't have to define a whole  
new form of the processing model for non-DOM implementations, you can  
just fill in some of the details in the model that  XHTML+RDFa already  
uses.

>
> * Normatively define how a DOM-based implementation should work for
>   those parts that people feel are not clear. This would only clarify
>   what DOM-based implementations should do and would not require
>   implementations to use a DOM to be viewed as a conformant RDFa
>   processor.
> * Normatively define how a DOM-based implementation should create
>   prefix mappings. This would only clarify what DOM-based
>   implementations should do and would not require implementations to
>   use a DOM to be viewed as a conformant RDFa processor.
> * Add test cases for every single one of Philip Taylors xmlns: tests
>   as well as any other tests that he has in his test suite where
>   implementations differ in the triples that they produce. Philip,
>   can you help me produce these tests?
> * If any of Philip Taylor's tests cannot be traced back to language in
>   the HTML+RDFa, XHTML+RDFa spec, or other normative spec in an
>   unambiguous way, then we must add language /somewhere/ to clarify
>   why a test case operates in a certain manner.
>
> To execute on these goals, we can do the following:
>
> 1. Discuss what language should be created or altered in an upcoming
>   RDFa Task Force telecon.
> 2. Edit the HTML+RDFa specification to add the normative language for
>   DOM-based implementations.
> 3. Get all of Philip's tests migrated into the RDFa Test Suite.
> 4. Map each of Philip's tests to normative language in a  
> specification,
>   and if there is no normative language, create normative language.
>
> Jonas, Henri, Maciej - does this seem like a good way forward? Is  
> there
> any other issue that was raised that should have a bullet item? If so,
> please summarize the issue in 1-2 sentences - don't elaborate on it if
> it was already covered in this discussion. I'm speaking with Henri
> tomorrow morning at 9am, and will try to get some further  
> understanding
> of his non-DOM (XOM) issues.
>
> -- manu
>
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 05:59:15 UTC