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

Re: Some RDFa 1.1 Core edge cases that we need to clarify

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:36:52 +0200
Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, nathan@webr3.org, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org, Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Message-Id: <FA9AB111-6172-4973-8C16-91A2CA879288@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>

On Oct 26, 2010, at 18:30 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> On 10/26/2010 11:26 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> Also, and correct me if I am wrong, don't we need to fully resolve any relative URIs in order to implant them in attributes within an XMLLiteral serialization?
>> Sigh. Yes but... do we do that with, say, the @src attribute value (that can also be relative)? If we really wanted to do that, that opens up a pandora's box. How do we know that a specific attribute value in a host language is a possibly relative URI, ie, we have to turn the relative URI into absolute? Does it mean that an application has to understand, say, the DTD of a host language?
>> I am tempted to say that no, we just dump into an XML Literal whatever we find there essentially verbatim. We do generate the necessary xmlns statements to make everything valid, but we stop there. In the unlikely case when the author really wants an XML Literal, let him/her put, say, an xml:base statement or something similar. Let us not try to be too intelligent:-(
> Hmm... but RDFa doesn't use xml:base... so what would an xml:base mean in the XMLLiteral?   XHTML doesn't use it either, so xml:base must not effect the interpretation of @src or @href in an XHTML fragment...  maybe.  Have I mentioned lately that I don't like XML Literals?

I think not lately:-)

>  Oooh.. and if there IS an xml:base in a parent node, is it a requirement of Exclusive Canonicalization that it be embedded in the serialization.   I bet it is.  Yay.  More edge cases.
> Anyway, I think what you are suggesting is that we do NOT expand / resolve relative URIs prior to embedding them in XML Literals.  I suspect this would violate the principle of lease surprise.  

Not if the document clearly says what will _not_ be done!


> If I am telling RDFa to capture the literal content of an element so it is a fragment that others can use, don't those URIs have to be expanded so that there is at least the possibility that the content will work in a different context?
> -- 
> 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 Tuesday, 26 October 2010 16:36:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:22 UTC