W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Official Response to ISSUE-131 from RDF Web Apps WG

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:45:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CADjV5jf6htGGt81tUYnT1DuGjPDZmxDBJwf8wDEoVFi0yOpjaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Manu,

Thank you. I find the decision made by the group acceptable.

(Also, thanks for your thorough account of the issue and our
subsequent discussion. That's most certainly valuable for anyone
reading about these intricacies later on.)

Best regards,

2012/2/26 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>:
> Hi Niklas,
> 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 Last Call issue
> before we enter the Candidate Recommendation phase for the RDFa 1.1
> specifications.
> Your issue was tracked here:
> https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/131
> Explanation of Issue
> --------------------
> You were concerned about two things:
> 1. That @href seemed to have precedence over @content.
> 2. That @href behaves like @about at times.
> You go into depth on the two concerns here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Feb/0040.html
> Working Group Decision
> ----------------------
> The Working Group discussed the issue at length:
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-02-23#ISSUE__2d_131__3a____40_href_overrides___40_content
> @href does, in fact, behave like @about at times and has done so since
> RDFa 1.0. While the Working Group does agree that this can be confusing
> at times, changing it at this stage in the process would not only
> introduce a backwards incompatibility, but it may also introduce
> unintended side-effects. The group felt that changing this processing
> rule would not be wise for RDFa 1.1.
> The Working Group found that your first point above, that @href seemed
> to have precedence over @content, was not true. Based on the processing
> rules, an element containing @href, @property and @content would set the
> new subject to the value of @href, the predicate to the value of
> @property and the object to the value of @content. However, the group
> did find a bug in the processing rules for when the datatype is set to
> the empty string on an element that contains @href, @property, @content
> and @datatype and resolved to fix this specification bug:
> RESOLVED: Fix the specification bug that ignores @datatype in step #11.
> (non-substantive)
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-02-23#resolution_1
> Since the Working Group had always intended the rule to work this way,
> and the bug had to do with new text that was added to the processing
> rules, this change is non-substantive for the purposes of the W3C Process.
> Feedback
> --------
> Since this is an official Working Group response to your issue, we would
> appreciate it if you responded to this e-mail and let us know if the
> 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
> http://digitalbazaar.com/2012/02/22/new-payswarm-alpha/
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 21:46:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:30 UTC