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

Re: Official Response to ISSUE-123 from RDF Web Apps WG

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:09:43 -0500
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C589940A-B84C-499D-8D91-8EF83175D016@greggkellogg.net>


On Jan 28, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> Hi Gregg, Richard,
> 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-123: Should RDFa Core 1.1 introduce the concept of an HTMLLiteral?
> https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/123
> Explanation of Issue
> --------------------
> You had asked the Working Group to consider the addition of an
> HTMLLiteral datatype:
> """
> I recently sent some feedback to the RDF WG on the use of XML Literals.
> The use of XML Literals in RDFa has often been problematic in tests,
> due, in part, to the need for XML Exclusive Canonicalization. Moreover,
> as XML Literal is used in RDFa principally to create literals including
> HTML markup, the fact that it's an XML Literal increasingly becomes a
> problem. It was more appropriate when all host languages are XML based
> (XHTML, SVG), but with HTML-based languages the content could just as
> easily be tag-soup.
> """
> Additionally, Richard Cyganiak had the following input:
> """
> What you're saying is that rdf:XMLLiteral is being abused to indicate
> the presence of general HTML markup. This abuse indicates the existence
> of an important unmet need. The response should be a call for meeting
> that need, and not necessarily a call for changing rdf:XMLLiteral to
> legalize the abuse.
> """
> To which you responded:
> """
> We should think about introducing this datatype and treating it
> similarly to rdf:XMLLiteral, but without the canonicalization
> requirements. There are arguments for either doing no processing (i.e.
> L2V just like xsd:string), or coercing to an infoset and using
> well-structured HTML, but I think this might be overkill for the
> intended applications.
> """
> Working Group Decision
> ----------------------
> We discussed the issue here:
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-12-15#ISSUE__2d_123__3a__HTMLLiterals
> The Working Group decided to leave the issue open and determine if
> something needed to be done for the HTML5+RDFa specifications, since
> that is where HTMLLiterals would make the most amount of sense. That is,
> we ensured that HTMLLiterals are not prohibited by any RDFa Core 1.1,
> and RDFa Lite 1.1 specification language. If the RDF WG creates an
> HTMLLiteral datatype, the Working Group will revisit the issue at that
> point.
> RESOLVED: Ensure that language in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 does not prevent the
> implementation of an HTMLLiteral datatype in the future. Ensure that
> HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not prevented from implementing an HTMLLiteral datatype.
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-12-15#resolution_1
> 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.


> -- 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 19:10:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:28 UTC