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

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> 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, 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:
>>
>>  * 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.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "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".
>
> I don't think you want to exclude HTML implementations that don't use
> a DOM for example.

But in any case, what you describe sounds like a fantastic first step.
If it doesn't get us all the way there, we can always make final
adjustments in later revisions.

Thanks!

/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 06:12:47 UTC