ISSUE-111

Last Call Comment: XSLT and Conformance Levels

State:
CLOSED
Product:
RDFa
Raised by:
Ben Adida
Opened on:
2008-04-03
Description:
raised by Micah Dubinko in [1]:

"""
When the RDFa specification enters Candidate Recommendation, please 
include as part of the exit criteria the requirement for at least one 
100% conforming implementation in XSLT 1.0.

If it turns out to be difficult to fully implement RDFa in XSLT 1.0 (as 
other comments may indicate), please either revise the specification or 
consider a separate conformance level for XSLT processors.
"""

Requires discussion.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0378.html
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-111: Last Call Comment: XSLT and Conformance Levels (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2008-04-03)
  2. [RDFa] Telecon Thursday - 1500 UTC (from ben@adida.net on 2008-06-04)
  3. RE: [RDFa] Telecon Thursday - 1500 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at on 2008-06-05)
  4. meeting record: 2008-06-05 RDF-in-XHTML task force (from swick@w3.org on 2008-06-05)

Related notes:

2008-05-27: Manu, Fabien, and Ivan are investigating.

2008-06-05: RESOLUTION: in response to ISSUE-111, we do not believe a change in the spec is justifiable. We believe that, architecturally, whitespace and namespace preservation are important. We will rely on deployment experience to inform specific implementation techniques. -- http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes#item03

2008-06-09: RESOLVED as: "we do not believe a change in the spec is justifiable. We believe that, architecturally, whitespace and namespace preservation are important. We will rely on deployment experience to inform specific implementation techniques." in telecon: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes#item02 and Micah responded: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jun/0008.html

2008-06-12: ACTION: Reject

2008-06-12: CHANGE-TYPE: None

2008-06-12: RESOLUTION: we do not believe a change in the spec is justifiable. We believe that, architecturally, whitespace and namespace preservation are important. We will rely on deployment experience to inform specific implementation techniques.

2008-06-12: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: Accept