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

Status of ISSUE-126 and ISSUE-139

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 21:30:14 -0400
Message-ID: <50440826.10205@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
Hi Alex, Mike, all,

I was asked to write up a summary of the current status of ISSUE-126 and
ISSUE-139. Alex, Mike, your feedback on the items below would be
appreciated.

ISSUE-126: Can xmlns: be reported as a warning?
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/126

Mike Smith would like us to state this in the HTML+RDFa spec:

"Conformance checkers may report the use of xmlns: as an error."

This is a change from what the spec says right now, which is:

"Conformance checkers must accept attribute names that have a case
insensitive prefix matching "xmlns:" as conforming. Conformance checkers
should generate warnings noting that the use of xmlns: is deprecated."

The base reason for asking for this change is that it is technically
difficult to implement what we have in the spec right now in the
validator.nu conformance checker at W3C. The SAX implementation that it
is using doesn't expose xmlns: declarations to the RDFa processor. This
seems strange to me, as well as being a bug in the toolchain that the
new validator is using. Still, we have an implementer requesting that
the spec be changed due to implementation impossibility for this
particular (heavily used) toolchain.

I'd be fine with making the change, as the Web Developer world/HTML5 has
moved away from xmlns: declarations. Note that this only applies to
conformance checkers... RDFa processors must still process the xmlns:
declaration.

Mike, does this capture your current stance on this issue?

ISSUE-139: Honor xml:base in XHTML5
-----------------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/139

This issue is an implementation concern raised by Alex Milowski.
Specifically, the use of xml:base is transparent to an HTML DOM-based
processor. This means that processing 'xml:base' cannot be ignored, and
the base URL is modified by the browser and the DOM-based interface has
no mechanism of detecting if xml:base was used at any point in the
document.

This seems strange to me. We should do some testing, but if this is
true, then DOM-based processors don't have the capability of ignoring
xml:base. We may need to add an errata for this issue for XHTML+RDFa 1.1.

Alex, does this capture your current stance on this issue?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Which is better - RDFa Lite or Microdata?
http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/
Received on Monday, 3 September 2012 01:30:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:32 UTC