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

  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 - 
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=""
>    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:

Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 02:07:42 UTC