W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Need volunteer reviewers for RDFa Core 1.1 (pre-Last Call)

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:06:58 -0500
Message-ID: <4CBCFD42.2000605@aptest.com>
To: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
  Some comments in line.

On 10/18/2010 5:51 PM, Christoph LANGE wrote:
> Shane,
>
>    thanks for your detailed feedback.  I really appreciate the transparent way in which you addressed Gregg's and my review.

De nada.  That's how we roll in the W3C.

> Some comments follow below.  Generally, where I didn't comment: Thanks for your explanations!  They helped me to understand the things that had been unclear to me.  (And the unclarities were not always to blame on the spec text!)
>
>>> (!) A comment for future discussion: Would it make sense to specify an algorithm for "normalizing" a fragment?  I mean making it self-contained, so that it can be pasted somewhere else.
>> This is a good idea!  I am not going to try to come up with that for
>> last call.  However, see the new note in Sequence step 11.  Does this
>> start to get where you want to be?
> Is the new version (editor's draft?) already available online?  I couldn't find it.
Not yet - I will send out mail when I push it.  It is available to 
members at 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html - 
actually, for all I know that is available to everyone

>
>> ...
>> The rdfa attributes are currently defined in the XHTML namespace - and I
>> think it is adequate that they stay there.
> I agree with that.  The concerns that I had w.r.t. the attributes are adequately addressed that way.
>
> So, just to get it right – is the following reasoning correct?
>
> Suppose a host language H declares an attribute that has the same name as one of the RDFa attributes, let it be @about, in a way that is not compatible with RDFa.  Then, would the "H+RDFa" specification have to require the RDFa attributes to be in the XHTML namespace, so as not to collide with H's own attributes?  If so, I guess the following fragment of a H document would not generate any triples:
>
> <host-element about="foo" rel="bar" resource="baz"/>
>
> … because these are considered attributes of the H language, whereas …
>
> <host-element xmlns:rdfa="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>    rdfa:about="foo" rdfa:rel="bar" rdfa:resource="baz"/>
>
> … would generate the triple (foo, bar, baz).
>
> (Note that I took the freedom to bind the "rdfa" prefix to the XHTML namespace URI; I think that's more intuitive, provided that the host language doesn't have any relation to XHTML.)

Yes - that's exactly right.  And I pray it never happens.

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 02:07:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:21 UTC