- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:13:47 -0500
- To: martin@weborganics.co.uk
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Thoughts below: Martin McEvoy wrote: > > > there is a flaw in with the above approach of course, which I guess is > why the whole discussion of RDFa profile's as a method of declaring > prefix-less tokens. > > example: > > <body vocab="http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#"> > > <div typeof="VCard" about=""> > > <div property="fn">Fred</div> > > <a rel="url me" href="http://fred.example.com/">Home</a> > > </div> > > </body> > > > the @rel value "me" is not a part of the vcard vocabulary, the parser > doesnt know that, How can a RDFa parser tell the difference between a > "qualified name" and some other name not included in the vocab? I don't really feel this is an issue. If you want to validate it, you *could* retrieve the document and look for keyword definitions in the default graph (following your nose to other referenced vocabularies if needed), but who cares? Seriously. This is no different than saying @rel="foo:bar". Who is to say there is a term 'bar' within 'foo'? Well, I did. Just now. When I referenced it. Today we provide some level of checking to ensure that our predefined keywords are used and others are not. I feel it would be fine to loosen the rules on parsers when you have changed the default vocabulary. In that instance, we trust the author to use terms but permit 'validating parsers' to attempt to do further validation and throw exceptions of they choose. This is the same thing XML does for its parsing rules. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 16:14:42 UTC