Re: term name for prefix redefinition?

I have pushed a new test (#313) for the prefer regeneration warning.

Ivan

On Nov 15, 2012, at 20:01 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> I agree with all of this.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> > Guys,
> >
> > I think we agreed on our last telco that, in RDFa+HTML5, a processor should raise a warning if a prefix definition redefines either an initial RDFa context entry or a prefix 'inherited' from an ancestor. (I trust Manu to do this change in the editor's draft.) To make things complete, we should
> >
> > - agree on a term name that I would add to http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa#. I propose
> >
> > rdfa:PrefixRedefinition dcterm:description "warning; to be used when a prefix, either from the initial context or inherited from an ancestor node, is redefined in an element";
> >     rdfs:subClassOf rdfa:Warning .
> >
> > (I guess it is perfectly fine if we decide on that in an email...)
> 
> + 1
> 
> > - If we have an agreement on all that, we should also add some tests before we forget. I am not sure it is worth adding a test on whether a warning is issues on _all_ predefined prefix-es; we have a series of test cases for those, but I believe it is enough if a test looks at at least one predefined prefix case, that should be enough to prove that the mechanism works for a specific implementation
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> > The slightly touch issue: formally, this extra warning is relevant for HTML5 only; but I do not believe that it should be a processor error if such a warning is issued for other cases, too. In other words, the tests should be added to the HTML5 branch of the test cases only, but the other branches should be silent...
> 
> +1
> 
> As you say, processors are allowed to warn about this in all
> circumstances. As 7.6 in Core says: "Other implementation-specific
> rdfa:Info, rdfa:Warning, or rdfa:Error triples may be generated by the
> RDFa Processor." And in 7.4.1 there is an explicit Note stating that
> "[in] general it is a bad practice to redefine prefix mappings within
> a document". So it's very reasonable to add this generally in an
> implementation, for all cases.
> 
> But as you also say, this is speced for, and the test is for, HTML5 only.
> 
> Best regards,
> Niklas
> 
> 
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Ivan
> >
> > ----
> > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> > mobile: +31-641044153
> > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Shane P. McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 18:21:21 UTC