Re: Notification: Role Attribute Editor's Draft available

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:31:19 -0500
Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:

> Please review this document, in particular Appendix A, so that you 
> understand what we are trying to do and that you agree with the 
> direction I am taking that spec in.

Firstly, given:

	<div id="quux" role="foo:bar">

It currently generates:

	<#quux> xhv:role foo:bar .

Another possibility would be:

	<> foo:bar <#quux> .

Is there any reason you've chosen the former over the latter? Was the
latter considered and dismissed for any particular reason?

Secondly, as @role uses CURIEs, does role use @prefix? The previous
drafts relied on @xmlns only. If @role is still restricted to using
@xmlns, then an RDFa processor would need to keep track of two
different sets of CURIE prefix definitions.

Lastly, the draft says "an RDFa Processor MUST process the role values
as follows". This could be interpreted in two different ways:

	1. If an RDFa processor chooses to process @role, then
	the following is the way it MUST do it; or

	2. RDFa processors MUST process @role, and this is how
	they MUST do it.

If the latter, I'd object to this document published outside the RDFa
WG making normative assertions about RDFa processing.

I ought to have a working implementation of this pretty soon.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>

Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 20:29:19 UTC