- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 16:14:48 -0500
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- CC: "public-rdfa-wg@w3.org" <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Shane McCarron wrote: > Oh.... ick. Thanks for pointing this out. And yes, implementations > should detect profiles that have already been processed and not > process them again. But the spec should say this. Oh... and to be clear... in my implementation at least I cache profiles that I have already processed and only reprocess if the source document has been modified since my original processing took place. I really think everyone who can cache should take this approach. > > Gregg Kellogg wrote: >> Okay, first cut of implementing @profile goes into an infinite loop. >> Section 7.5 item 3 indicates that any element containing an @profile >> document is processed as indicated in RDFa Profiles (section 9). Test >> 0089 contains <head profile="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab">, >> which causes the parser to load <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab> >> to extract the vocabulary. That vocabulary also contains the same >> <head> element, so the parser goes into an infinite loop. >> >> Clearly, the parser can check for a recursive call to call an already >> opened profile, but the processing instructions should discuss this. >> It seems that in the case of < http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab>, >> it is intended to note that this defines a profile, not requires a >> profile. Should processing rules be different the <head>, is the >> profile use in this case just wrong? In any case, it looks like an >> existing useage pattern that is incompatible with the processing >> instructions. >> >> Gregg >> >> >> > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Sunday, 2 May 2010 21:15:47 UTC