Re: ISSUE-23 (profile-order): @profile order - RDFa Core 1.1 versus HTML 4.01 and XMDP [RDFa 1.1 Core]

On May 7, 2010, at 13:04 , Mark Birbeck wrote:

> Hi Toby,
> 
> Nicely spotted.
> 
> I think your reverse-order suggestion makes a lot of sense.
> 

I have no problem with that either

Ivan

> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:00 AM, RDFa Working Group Issue Tracker
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>> ISSUE-23 (profile-order): @profile order - RDFa Core 1.1 versus HTML 4.01 and XMDP [RDFa 1.1 Core]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/23
>> 
>> Raised by: Toby Inkster
>> On product: RDFa 1.1 Core
>> 
>> In HTML 4.01 only the first URI in the list of URIs in the @profile attribute is considered significant.
>> 
>> The XMDP spec (used in Microformats) in a deliberately over-liberal interpretation expands that to say that the first URI in @profile is the *most* significant; with the others being progressively less significant. In practise, this means that if the same term is defined by two profiles in the same attribute, then the profile listed earlier in the attribute "wins".
>> 
>> RDFa Core 1.1 reverses that by allowing the second profile to override the first.
>> 
>> In practise, I don't think this difference is going to effect implementations at all, but it would be nice for RDFa 1.1 to say that multiple profiles in a single attribute should be processed in reverse order. Another possibility could be to reverse the order only in the XHTML host language, but I like that idea less.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


----
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