- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:01:05 -0400
- To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
- CC: Peter Danielsen <wiscal@gmail.com>, W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 10/22/12 09:45, Alex Milowski wrote: > As I can see, there is no test for this. I sent a note out on Oct > 2nd about that but it wasn't tied to a detailed explanation like > Peter sent. > > I am also happy to write up some test cases for this as well. Yes, please add a few test cases for this so that we can ensure proper coverage for the other implementations. > 1. Should it be resolved at all? > > Since RDFa needs the output to be absolute URI values and the > recommendations of [3] indicates that specifications shouldn't > interpret relative namespace name URIs, if we wish the @prefix to be > consistent with XML Namespaces, we shouldn't as well. In fact, I > would say we could go further and say that relative prefix values are > ignored. I think the intent was to always concatenate prefixes with tokens in the document (such as those placed in @property, @rel, etc.) and NOT resolve them against base. > As a user, I'll never use relative URI values for prefixes per the > recommendations of [3]. As an implementor, I just want to know what > to do: ignore or resolve? Using mappings to relative URIs, which is > what my implementation does, per 7.5, step 3, is just broken as it > results in relative URIs in the output graph. We'll get clarification on this from the group during the next telecon (which should be next week). -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: HTML5 and RDFa 1.1 http://manu.sporny.org/2012/html5-and-rdfa/
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 17:01:43 UTC