- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:30:29 +0200
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <C264C00C-4651-4FE7-89FB-239B758338F0@w3.org>
Not disagreeing, just adding... My opposition last week was also motivated by the fact that having a requirement on using @version means a real load on parsers. In the meantime I looked at my own code and it is indeed relatively easy to factor out the 1.1 specific things. So it is not _such_ a load. In this sense a SHOULD on ignoring @version seems o.k. to me, even a MAY is fine. I think the only thing we want to avoid is a MUST on _using_ the @version... Ivan On Jul 14, 2010, at 14:05 , Toby Inkster wrote: > Essentially what we want parsers to do is ignore @version -- i.e. > always use the latest version of RDFa. > > Firstly, let's check that we've left enough space for future > innovation. I think we have. If a future version of RDFa, say 2.0, is > so incompatible with RDFa 1.x that version detection is needed, they > can say that authors MUST include a particular profile attribute on > their root element, say: > > profile="urn:w3c:rdfa:2.0" > > As it's deliberately unresolvable, an RDFa 1.1 processor will skip the > root element. This effectively allows future RDFa Working Groups to > re-establish versioning, so I think we have that covered. > > So the versioning discussion only needs to apply to RDFa 1.0 and 1.1. > > Now, let's assume that somebody *wants* to do version detection, > despite us saying it's a bad idea. Their code might be something like > this: > > function rdfa11_processor ($doc) { > if (check_version($doc)==1.0) { > return rdfa10_parse($doc); > } else { > return rdfa11_parse($doc); > } > } > > If we prohibit this and say it's not conforming, they just refactor > their code: > > function html_processor ($doc) { > if (check_version($doc)==1.0) { > return rdfa10_processor($doc); > } else { > return rdfa11_processor($doc); > } > } > > Now they're still doing version detection, but their rdfa11_processor > function is technically conforming, because the version detection > occurs externally to it. > > So my argument is that we make ignoring @version a SHOULD rather than a > MUST, because if it's a MUST people can just work around it. > > -- > Toby A Inkster > <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> > <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 08:30:28 UTC