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
 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).


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<>  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:

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key:

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