Re: Last Call Response to ISSUE-73: RDFa Profile management

Just for my understanding: what this means is that what I said remains true at least for XHTML:

- the XHTML default profile does not (necessarily) include the content of the RDFa+XML default profile
- in the case of XHTML, an implementation has to load both of them (conceptually) and has to reconcile the prefixes and terms.

The difference you seem to stress is that a particular host language has the possibility to declare that it does _not_ want to get the RDFa+XML default profile to be loaded prior to its own profile.

Cheers

Ivan




On Feb 28, 2011, at 18:17 , Manu Sporny wrote:

> On 02/27/11 18:47, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>> 1. Always load the RDFa Core 1.1 default profile first.
>>> 2. If an "application/xhtml+xml" or "text/html" MIMEType is detected,
>>>   load the HTML+RDFa 1.1 default profile.
>>> 
>>> Step #1 will be placed into the RDFa Core 1.1 specification. Step #2
>>> will be placed into the (X)HTML Host Language specifications.
>> 
>> I actually DISAGREE with this.  I think it is more sensible to have the
>> processor determine the media type, then act accordingly.  In fact, we
>> had already introduced text that supports that model [1]:
> 
> Apologies - the text I wrote above was confusing at best. During the
> telecon, I believe that we agreed to a general approach but left some of
> the implementation details a bit vague with the assumption that we would
> sort them out at a later point in time.
> 
> Let me attempt to clarify what I believe would work for everyone by
> asserting a few things:
> 
> * It is ultimately the Host Language's decision on which Default
>   Profiles to load.
> * Which profiles to load will be determined by the MIMEType of the
>   document being processed if it is known. If the MIMEType is not
>   known, XML+RDFa will be assumed.
> * Before processing, XML+RDFa will load the ".../rdfa-1.1" Default
>   Profile before processing.
> * Before processing, (X)HTML+RDFa 1.1 will load the ".../rdfa-1.1"
>   Default Profile first, and then the ".../html-rdfa-1.1" Default
>   Profile second.
> 
> Since we are currently writing the Host Language documents for XML,
> HTML4, HTML5, and XHTML1 - we don't have to worry about potential
> divergence between those languages.
> 
> It is up to the ODF, ePub, and SVG folks to figure out if this strategy
> works for them - which is how it should be. We shouldn't assume that we
> know what is best for any other Host Language with which we're not
> intimately familiar.
> 
> There is a concern over multiple HTTP requests to get two profiles vs.
> one, but I would expect that implementations will take care to cache
> this sort of data.
> 
> I'll add this to the agenda for this week, just so we can make sure
> there is consensus on this. If anybody disagrees with this approach,
> please speak up now.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Towards Universal Web Commerce
> http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/01/31/web-commerce/
> 


----
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