- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:05:08 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 12:31 +0200, Ivan Herman wrote: > 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). I think the gist of the role attribute spec should be along these lines: If a markup language contains the role attribute, then an RDFa processor processing a document written in that markup language according to the rules of that markup language (not simply according to the rules of RDFa Core) MAY generate additional triples for role attributes. If these additional triples are being generated, then this is the method that MUST be followed... i.e. an RDFa processor should not be looking at @role, but a Foo processor may generate triples for @role assuming that Foo is a markup language that incorporates @role and RDFa. For "Foo" in the preceding paragraph you may wish to substitute "XHTML 1.2" or "HTML5+RDFa". -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 11:06:19 UTC