- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:25:27 -0500
- To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4EA083B7.5050208@aptest.com>
Wow - I completely do not remember that. I removed that a very long time ago - probably when profiles went away. I personally don't think there should be an initial context for XML+RDFa, but mostly that's because I feel that if you are using RDFa that way you are going to be explicit about everything. On 10/20/2011 3:14 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > On Oct 20, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Shane McCarron wrote: > >> XML+RDFa never had an initial context in any draft. If there was a >> decision about including one, I missed it. > > From [4]: > > [[[ > When an RDFa Processor processes an XML+RDFa document, it does so in > the following context: > > 1. The default vocabulary URI is undefined. > 2. The default collection of terms is defined via an RDFa Profile > document at http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1. > 3. The base can be set using the @xml:base attribute as defined in > [XML10-4e]. > 4. The current language can be set using @xml:lang attribute. > ]]] > >> On 10/20/2011 2:10 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: >>> Shane: >>> On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> I have updated our source document and am preparing to push an >>>> Editor's Draft into date space. However, in completing my action >>>> about namespaced attributes, I was forced to make a decision about >>>> the prose that was not explicitly discussed by the working group. >>>> If you look at [1] you will see: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4.3XML+RDFa Document Conformance >>>>> >>>>> This specification does not define a stand-alone document type. >>>>> The attributes herein are intended to be integrated into other >>>>> host languages (e.g., HTML+RDFa or XHTML+RDFa). However, this >>>>> specification*does*define processing rules for generic XML >>>>> documents - that is, those documents delivered as media >>>>> types|text/xml|or|application/xml|. Such documents must meet all >>>>> of the following criteria: >>>>> >>>>> 1. The document/must/be well-formed as defined in [XML10-4e >>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#bib-XML10-4e>]. >>>>> 2. The document/must/use the attributes defined in this >>>>> specification through references to the XHTML namespace >>>>> (|http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml|). >>>>> >>>>> When an RDFa Processor processes an XML+RDFa document, it does so >>>>> via the followinginitial context >>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#T-initial-context>: >>>>> >>>>> 1. There is no default collection of terms. >>>>> 2. There are no default IRI mappings. >>>>> 3. There is no default vocabulary IRI. >>>>> 4. Thebase >>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#T-base>can >>>>> be set using the@xml:baseattribute as defined in [XML10-4e >>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#bib-XML10-4e>]. >>>>> 5. Thecurrent language >>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#T-current-language>can >>>>> be set using@xml:langattribute >>>>> >>> >>> Previously as I recall, RDF Core 1.1 did have a default profile >>> applied to all host languages, including XML [2]. This was, in fact, >>> where all of the prefixes were defined; XHTML+RDFa defined mostly >>> link relation terms. We did decide to keep the default profile, now >>> renamed to "initial context". However, I don't see that we decided >>> that XML+RDFa would not have such an initial context. Did I miss >>> something? (Actually, there's not even an ISSUE recorded for >>> removing @profile, just a meeting note [3]. >>> >>> Gregg >>> >>>> Note that this now says that in a generic document, RDFa attributes >>>> MUST be referenced in a qualified manner. Since this is a generic >>>> XML document, we cannot assume that unqualified attributes (ones in >>>> 'no namespace') are actually relevant to RDFa. A generic XML >>>> document can have ANY elements and attributes (consider private XML >>>> structures) and adding RDFa semantics to them has to be qualified >>>> so there is no possibility of a collision. For example, my Real >>>> Estate Annotation Language (REAL) might have a property attribute >>>> (property="residential"), but clearly that is not the same as >>>> @xh:property. >>>> >>>> I trust this restriction is consistent with what everyone was >>>> thinking in the call. >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#xmlrdfaconformance >>>> >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1 >>> [3] >>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-07-28#Removing___40_profile > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#xmlrdfaconformance >>>> -- >>>> Shane McCarron >>>> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. >>>> +1 763 786 8160 x120 >>> >> >> -- >> Shane McCarron >> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. >> +1 763 786 8160 x120 > -- Shane McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. +1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 20:25:59 UTC