Re: Official Response to ISSUE-134 from RDF Web Apps WG

In fact, I did find this issue in the specification and my
implementation by looking at an example in the spec (maybe
and wondering why it didn't work.  I could wish for something a bit
more clear but the combination of checking the examples and test cases
make it clear what the text means (assuming the examples and tests are
correct).  That's a bit circular but I can live with it.

As such, I accept this resolution.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Manu Sporny <> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> Thank you for your public feedback on the RDFa 1.1 documents. This is an
> official response from the RDF Web Apps WG to your Candidate
> Recommendation issue before we enter the Proposed Recommendation phase
> for the RDFa 1.1 specifications.
> Your issue was tracked here:
> Explanation of Issue
> --------------------
> You were concerned about the wording in RDFa Core 1.1, Section 7.5, Step
> 11. Specifically the following:
> "otherwise, if the @rel, @rev, and @content attributes are not
> present, as a resource obtained from one of the following:"
> You had suggested that we change the language to something that
> clarifies that a resource is obtained from the list of options below.
> Something to the effect of:
> "... otherwise, if the @rel, @rev, and @content attributes are not
> present, and a resource is obtained from one of the following: ..."
> Working Group Decision
> ----------------------
> The Working Group discussed the issue at length:
> The primary concern that the group had was changing the language just a
> few days before going into Proposed Recommendation. We were wary of
> introducing a bug at the last second by changing the processing rules.
> Additionally, it was noted that there are a number of interoperable
> implementations at this point, a test suite to clarify any ambiguity in
> the language, and at least one person that is not in the Working Group
> that believes the text is acceptable as it stands right now.
> While we do agree that the text could be more clear, the group couldn't
> decide on wording that would be better. Additionally, the risk is that
> new wording would create the same issue with another implementer. There
> are two other protections against mis-implementation of this feature. We
> believe that there is an example (in section in the
> specification that would not work if this step was mis-implemented. We
> also believe that a number of tests in the test suite would not function
> if this step was mis-implemented. If there isn't a test in the test
> suite that covers this step, we will be sure to create one (with your
> help to ensure that we are testing the correct thing).
> With that rationale, the Working Group made the following decision:
> RESOLVED: Regarding Section 7.5, Step 11, while the text is not as clear
> as it should be, making a change at this point could be more problematic
> than leaving the text as is.
> Feedback
> --------
> Since this is an official Working Group response to your issue, and
> since the group is under an extremely tight deadline, we would really
> appreciate it if you responded immediately to this e-mail and let us
> know if the findings and decision made by the group is acceptable to you
> as soon as possible.
> -- manu
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: PaySwarm Website for Developers Launched

--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics

Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 04:53:45 UTC