W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2011

PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-33: Fix all WebIDL related issues regarding RDFa API

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:48:54 -0500
Message-ID: <4D1FF5A6.2060608@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
CC: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
If there are no objections to this proposal in 7 days, we will close
ISSUE-33: Fix all WebIDL related issues regarding RDFa API.


Dominique Hazael-Massieux provided a list of comments and corrections to
one of the very early RDFa API specs. Many of the changes were made but
the issue remained open until an RDFa WG member could make a pass
through the document and ensure that the necessary corrections were
made. A few of the changes no longer apply to the current RDFa API
document since the split into the RDF API and RDFa API. Individual
responses to each issue are provided below:

> * "object" is used as an argument name in a number of methods, but
> object is a reserved keyword in WebIDL

"object" is no longer passed as an argument to any method.

> * a contrario, the WebIDL refers to a "Object" interface that isn't
> defined; I assume "object" was meant

Fixed in the latest source version of the editor's draft.

> * rather than allowing any object, it seems to me that a wrapper
> interface for IRI, PlainLiteral, TypedLiteral, BlankNode would help
> define a more specific API

All of these interfaces have been moved into the RDF API document, which
uses the concept of an RDFNode as the wrapper interface:


> * it sounds like predicate can only by IRIs, in which case the various
> methods that use "Object" as a type for the predicate argument should
> use IRI instead

This comment no longer applies for two reasons:

1. The low-level interfaces have been moved into the RDF API spec.
2. There is discussion about allowing predicates to be RDFNodes -
   including plain literals, graph literals, etc.

The direction on whether or not this is going to be allowed is not so
clear at the moment, but regardless, the comment does not apply to the
RDFa API anymore.

> * PropertyGroup and DataQuery uses Sequence[] when I think sequence<> is
> meant

You are correct and the error has been corrected. Unfortunately, there
is a bug in ReSpec that doesn't allow the display of <> characters due
to post-processing issues. Your change, however, has been applied.

> * there are also a few cases of Any instead of "any"


> * note that sequence<> is not recommended for use in attributes, per 
>        "For attributes, it is recommended that a read only array is
>        used instead."
>        http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-sequence 


> * "The RDFa Working Group is considering whether plain literals should
> express literal values as UTF-8, or whether the encoding of the source
> document should be used instead." 
> The WebIDL spec says that DOMStrings are to be interpreted as UTF-16
> encoded strings
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-DOMString

You are correct, that statement has been removed.

> * the proposed WebIDL creates a number of constructors (for
> PlainLiteral, IRI, TypedLiteral, BlankNode, RDFTriple) in the global
> namespace; they risk colliding with existing usage on the Web (making
> their implementation in browsers difficult or unlikely), and are not
> very usual in most JavaScript APIs; given that there are factory methods
> available from document.data.store, it's not obvious what the benefits
> of having these constructors are

All constructors have been removed from both the RDFa API and RDF API
based on your feedback. There is no longer any pollution of the global

> * likewise, most interafaces should probably be annotated with
> [NoInterfaceObject] to avoid polluting the global namespace


> * the examples use a "print()" function, but print() in JavaScript
> commonly refers to window.print() which is used to print a page

Examples no longer use the print() function, but rather explain the
result of the execution of the code in a paragraph below each example.

> * the interface Document is in conflict with the interface defined in
> HTML5 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/infrastructure.html#document
> You probably want to define a "supplemental" interface, the same way
> e.g. the Selectors API does:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-selectors-api-20091222/#nodeselector


Thanks for your feedback, we have applied every change that you raised
that can be applied to the RDFa API document as it stands today. Please
let us know if there is any portion of your comments that were not
applied, that must be applied in order to satisfy your concerns over the
RDFa specification.

Please comment in 7 days from this post if you object to this proposal.
If there are no objections within 7 days, ISSUE-33 will be closed.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Linked Data in JSON
Received on Sunday, 2 January 2011 03:49:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:23 UTC