Re: Official Response to ISSUE-117 from RDF Web Apps WG

Gregg

On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> Hi Jeni, Gregg,
> 
> 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 issue before we enter
> the 3rd Last Call for the RDFa 1.1 work this coming Tuesday. The Last
> Call will last for 3 weeks, so there is still time for you to discuss
> your concerns if we have not fully addressed them.
> 
> Your issue was tracked here:
> 
> ISSUE-117: Consider disallowing @about on <html>
> https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/117
> 
> Explanation of Issue
> --------------------
> 
> Jeni - you mentioned the following issue during your work in the HTML
> Data Task Force:
> 
> """
> I've written some text warning people about potential restructuring of
> invalid HTML [1] which I've reproduced below.
> 
> I haven't mentioned the issue around omitted tags for <head> and <body>,
> which having thought about it I think is a HTML+RDFa bug. It is, after
> all, HTML+RDFa which introduces the rules that rely on the presence of
> head/body [2]:
> 
>   * In Section 7.5: Sequence, processing step 6, if no URI is provided
> by a resource attribute, then first check to see if the element is the
> head or body element. If it is, then act as if there is an empty @about
> present, and process it according to the rule for @about.
>   * In Section 7.5: Sequence, processing step 7, if no URI is provided,
> then first check to see if the element is the head or body element. If
> it is, then act as if there is an empty @about present, and process it
> according to the rule for @about.
> 
> I think the solution is probably to add a rule that RDFa attributes such
> as @about aren't permitted on the <html> element.
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Choosing_an_HTML_Data_Format#Good_Publishing_Practice
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#additional-rdfa-processing-rules
> 
> """
> 
> Working Group Decision
> ----------------------
> 
> The discussion can be found here:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-12-08#ISSUE__2d_117__3a__Do_not_automatically_define___40_about_on___3c_body__3e__and___3c_head__3e_
> 
> In the end, we modified the processing rules from assuming that certain
> elements exist to ensuring that the parent object is set before the
> processor starts processing the document. We believe that this addresses
> the issue in the most elegant way possible - ensuring backwards
> compatibility while addressing your concern.
> 
> RESOLVED: Modify HTML+RDFa and XHTML+RDFa to modify processing steps #5
> and #6 from assuming an empty @about value to assuming that new subject
> is set to the parent object.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-12-08#resolution_2
> 
> 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.

Thanks Manu, I'm satisfied with the resolution.

Gregg

> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: PaySwarm vs. OpenTransact Shootout
> http://manu.sporny.org/2011/web-payments-comparison/

Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 19:10:14 UTC