Re: Status of ISSUE-126 and ISSUE-139

On Sep 2, 2012, at 7:30 PM, "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> 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.

I've never understood the motivation for _not_ using xml:base. I also believe we have a positive test case for this.

Gregg

> 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 01:36:43 UTC