- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:29:30 -0500
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: nathan@webr3.org, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Correct. Moreover, if that prefix declaration were made in an external RDFa Profile, and that profile document were not loaded, the processor would not even look at the item to TRY to expand the CURIE. Processing of the tree starting at the element where the @profile attribute was defined would be skipped. On 9/13/2010 3:17 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:21:14 +0100 > Nathan<nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > >> Perhaps that's a question I should ask then, if an (X)HTML+RDFa 1.1 >> document contains CURIE-s that cannot be resolved, ... > This is a situation which I don't think can arise. A CURIE-like token > that doesn't correspond to an existing CURIE prefix is taken to be a > URI. > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 20:30:21 UTC