- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:40:35 +0000
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- CC: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
The other approach is to try and get the unmodified DOM back from the browser, if HTTP cacheing is in place then one could simply GET it again and leverage document.implementation or xhr.responseXML to get an untouched DOM to parse. There will probably be more approaches, but probably something we want to keep a watch on advise on. Worth raising a bug / action? Best, Nathan Mark Birbeck wrote: > Very good point, Nathan (and Tom). > > What about signing the data via a predicate? If it's absent, a strict > parser might ignore the triples. And if it's present, its value must > match a value computed in much the same way that XML Signatures [1] > work...or perhaps a little simpler. ;) > > In fact...Manu mentioned to me the other day that his company recently > had need to sign instances of JSON-LD; perhaps we need to look at > generalising whatever it was that they did. > > Any thoughts on this, Manu? Did you add the signature as a predicate, > or was it outside of the RDF? > > (Once you've finished your turkey, of course.) > > Mark > > [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> If we lift RDFa from the DOM, and the DOM can be manipulated via JS before >> lifting the RDF graph, then how does one trust the RDFa? >> >> Also, how should parsers treat <iframes>? >> >> Two interesting points via Tom Morris, >> >> Best, >> >> Nathan >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 25 November 2010 19:41:44 UTC