- From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 20:50:35 -0400
- To: Alex Miłowski <alex@milowski.com>
- Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGR+nnGZwS_=C_tCfs3Z+pUsdjWwKLxRb=--Vy+WYzg6A+-koQ@mail.gmail.com>
Awesome! I'll get that fixed then. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Alex Miłowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote: > Sorry, didn't see this till now. > > For an XML-oriented processor, the lang="en" attribute would just be > ignored. Having both would be just fine for my processor. I can't > imagine it hurting others because they aren't suppose to recognize > anything other than the xml:lang attribute. > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet > <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Reece Dunn <msclrhd@googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On 3 July 2014 06:19, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wednesday, July 2, 2014, Alex Miłowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I don't see any problem with XML has a host language. There are > >> >> plenty of XML vocabularies that will benefit from RDFa. In fact, > RDFa > >> >> is being added to DocBook and will be valid DocBook for version 5.1. > >> > > >> > > >> > It's not the XML is a bad host language, but that this test isn't > setup > >> > to > >> > run in XML mode. It could be if @lang were changed to &xml:lang, but > >> > that > >> > may not be the point if the test. Easiest thing would be to just > remove > >> > XML > >> > from the set if host languages for this particular test in the test > >> > manifest. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Meanwhile, the test seems just incorrect. The only language > attribute > >> >> available that is universally recognized is xml:lang. > >> >> > >> >> The simple solution is to correct the input document in the test > case. > >> > > >> > Either way, perhaps the test author can chime in with specifically > what > >> > the > >> > purpose of the test is. > >> > >> I did not write that particular test (scor did), but it is related to > >> tests I did write (0330 and 0331). The original discussion was at > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2013Apr/0012.html. > >> > >> These were created for the web page > >> http://reecedunn.co.uk/espeak-for-android (HTML5 page) for which the > >> rdf/rdfa ruby module incorrectly extracted the: > >> > >> <li content='af' datatype='dct:RFC5646' > >> property='s:countriesSupported'>Afrikaans</li> > >> > >> metadata as the page had <html lang="en"> declared at the top (i.e. it > >> used the lang property, not the datatype property as other tools did). > >> > >> I am happy for: > >> > >> 1. these tests to be restricted to the HTML (and possibly the XHTML > >> tests); > >> 2. a new set of tests based on 0330-0332 using xml:lang instead. > > > > > > Would having the polyglot notation with both lang="en" and xml:lang="en" > > solve the problems here? or would lang="en" still make XML unhappy? > > > >> > >> > >> NOTE: The 0332 test references 7.5 step 11 in the specification. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> - Reece > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Steph. > > > > -- > --Alex Milowski > "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the > inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language > considered." > > Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics > > -- Steph.
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2014 00:51:02 UTC