Re: Made rdf:HTML/XMLLiteral non-normative

On Dec 17, 2013 9:29 PM, "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>
> On 17 Dec 2013, at 19:29, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
wrote:
> >> I don't know if the first option is viable, because no normative
> >> definition can depend on anything informative, so we might just end up
> >> pushing the problem deeper and deeper.
> >
> > As far as I can see, there are no normative definitions depending on
these.
>
> Okay, looking through the other documents I agree they’re all fine.
>
> >> If both implementations use the informative L2V mapping currently in
> >> the spec, then they *are* fully interoperable.
> >
> > Right, but the same applies to just about everything.
>
> Well, no. For example, if one implementation keeps its old behaviour from
RDF 2004, and the other implements an 1:1 L2V mapping, then they would be
incompatible.
>
> >> Given how stable the DOM is, this seems like a rather
> >> theoretical possibility. Regardless, W3C procedure clearly prevents us
> >> from normatively referencing DOM4 before it hits Rec.
> >
> > The same was said about promises which then required us to go through a
> > second last call with JSON-LD and finally make the API non-normative.
>
> I know. All the options I listed make the DOM4 reference informative, to
avoid this kind of scenario.

I know we dismissed duplicating the present DOM4 spec but in light of the
current understanding of the issues, it may be best. It doesn't change the
risk of skew from DOM4 because all options lead to implementors writing
something now which we intend to further specify later. At least this way,
we have a pretty optimal deployment path if DOM4 doesn't change the
definitions we intend to leverage.

Or we could give Semantics to the HTML WG; I'm sure they'd nurture it as if
it were one of their own.

> > I still believe the right thing to do would be to simply drop the
> > two statements in section 5.4 and be done with it:
> >
> >  1. If the IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral
> >     is recognized then it refers to the datatype rdf:XMLLiteral;
> >  2. If the IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#HTML is
> >     recognized then it refers to the datatype rdf:HTML;
>
> I can’t live with the complete removal of the HTML and XMLLiteral IRIs
from that section. Readers will go to the section on “datatype IRIs” and to
the definition of “recognized datatype IRI” to look for the requirements
regarding datatype support, and can expect to find all datatype IRIs
assigned by the RDF specs mentioned there.
>
> I also think that omitting rationale for the non-normativity of the two
datatypes would be a mistake, as it sends a wrong message.
>
> I’ve stated what I believe is the cleanest way to avoid these two
problems, so will just repeat the link:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0260.html
>
> I suppose it could also be done by adding a couple of notes to all the
affected subsections. Do you think that would be better?
>
> Best,
> Richard