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

On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> 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.

I think the processing rules should be written in terms of the DOM,  
but allowing an implementation to implement the rules any way it  
wants, as long as the results are equivalent. That is how HTML5 and  
XHTML+RDFa are both written, so it also makes sense for HTML+RDFa.

Making special DOM-only processing rules that don't otherwise apply  
would be bad, so I hope that's not what Manu is proposing.


Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 06:16:25 UTC