W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > February 2009

Re: RDFa and Web Directions North 2009

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:10:02 +0100
Message-ID: <499C24CA.7000909@danbri.org>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Michael Bolger <michael@michaelbolger.net>, public-rdfa@w3.org, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 18/2/09 16:07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2009, at 16:08, Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>>>> It doesn't represent XML attribute spelled "xmlns:foo" in the XML
>>>>> source
>>>>> code as attributes in the API. Thus, if you write a XOM-based
>>>>> consumer for
>>>>> RDFa-in-XML as currently defined, you can't just swap the parser to
>>>>> an HTML5
>>>>> parser and have it work.
>>>> It appears to me that this could be considered to be either a bug in
>>>> the
>>>> HTML5 parser, or in XOM.
>>> Absent RDFa, it clearly isn't a bug in either. RDFa is what adds a
>>> problem.
>> Please see my other email about how this breaks currently working HTML
>> documents.
> Can you show me a conforming HTML 2.0, 3.2, 4.0, 4.01 or 5 (as drafted
> today) file (or even XHTML 1.0 Appendix C file!) that can't be usefully
> mapped to existing XML APIs the way the HTML 5 spec says?

Just a brief point: how nice to see a discussion based around concrete 
test cases.

That's all :)

Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 15:10:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:42 UTC