- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 18:31:28 -0500
- To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, RDFa Community <public-rdfa@w3.org>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Philip Taylor wrote: > Shane McCarron wrote: > > If portability isn't guaranteed in a very simple case like this, then > it sounds like the specification would have failed at the fundamental > task of specifying behaviour that will be interoperably implemented. That's really not the same issue at all.... but let's go there. Portability and interoperability in this context are specifically related to the triples that are extracted from identical input by different conforming processors. The specification REQUIRES case sensitive processing of prefix names. Right now. There is no question about that. And a conforming processor will adhere to this requirement. I would not be open to loosening that requirement, since it seems silly to do so. However, I could envision a client-side processor running on a legacy user agent that would have trouble adhering to this requirement. Such a processor would NOT be a conforming processor and portability and interoperability would NOT be guaranteed. However, with some simple guidance to authors we can help to increase the portability among even these non-conforming processors. That's goodness, and costs us nothing. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 23:32:20 UTC