Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-17: @role integration

The current text in the role document says:

[[[
When @role is included in a markup language that also includes RDFa Core [RDFA-CORE], an RDFa Processor MUST process the role values as follows:

 If @id is present, it is used to supply the subject by concatenating the document's 'base', a fragment separator '#', and the value of @id. Otherwise the subject is a unique newly created bnode.
 The predicate is the term role in the vocabulary defined at http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab.
 Each value of @role is an object, forming an RDF triple with the subject and predicate defined above.
]]]

And I indeed object to that. The PF WG has no mandate of imposing any MUST on an RDFa processor. I am o.k. if the MUST is exchanged against a MAY. And it is up to the RDFa processor whether and how they do that (e.g., by a special switch).

Ivan


On Oct 4, 2010, at 05:37 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> And it is.... do you have alternate wording?
> 
> On 10/3/2010 3:11 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 13:21:27 -0400
>> Manu Sporny<msporny@digitalbazaar.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Please comment in 7 days from this post if you object to this
>>> proposal. If there are no objections within 7 days, ISSUE-17 will be
>>> closed.
>> I think there's still an issue, but an issue at the PFWG side.
>> 
>> Namely, that the current wording of the role attribute draft makes it
>> seem like it's placing normative requirements on XHTML+RDFa and
>> HTML+RDFa processors.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
> 
> 
> 


----
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

Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 10:28:32 UTC