Difference between revisions of "Html-rdfa-1.1-pr-overview"

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Introduction)
(Changes since Last Call)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
= Changes since Last Call =
 
= Changes since Last Call =
 
<em>Provide public documentation of all changes (both substantive and minor) to the technical report since the previous step. A substantive change (whether deletion, inclusion, or other modification) is one where someone could reasonably expect that making the change would invalidate an individual's review or implementation experience. Other changes (e.g., clarifications, bug fixes, editorial repairs, and minor error corrections) are minor changes.</em>
 
  
 
* Editorial - Fixed Turtle output in Example #1
 
* Editorial - Fixed Turtle output in Example #1

Revision as of 20:06, 27 March 2013

Introduction

This document outlines the state of the HTML+RDFa 1.1 Last Call and Implementations. The purpose of the document is to help those making the decision on whether or not to allow HTML+RDFa 1.1 to transition directly from Last Call to Proposed Recommendation.

Decision to Advance to PR

None yet.

Changes since Last Call

  • Editorial - Fixed Turtle output in Example #1
  • Non-substantive Technical Change - Narrowed LINK and META allow-ability in the body of HTML5 documents to enable W3C Validator to catch more potential authoring errors.
  • Editorial - Changed description of @datetime processing to be easier to understand for implementers.
  • Non-substantive Normative Change - Noted that TIME/@datetime and rdf:HTML features are non-normative features from non-REC documents and that once those features are published in REC documents that a Proposed Edited Recommendation will be published for HTML+RDFa 1.1 making the features normative.

Changes to WG Requirements for HTML+RDFa 1.1

None

Dependencies

  • HTML5 - HTML+RDFa 1.1 uses the TIME element and @datetime attribute. We have received assurance that the feature is stable.
  • RDF Concepts - HTML+RDFa 1.1 uses the rdf:HTML vocabulary term. *** EMAIL DAVID WOOD ASKING FOR ASSURANCE ***
  • W3C Validator - We have made a change to reduce the possibility of authoring error with a minor feature of HTML+RDFa 1.1.

Evidence of wide review

The HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification was published as a FPWD in the HTML Working Group, co-developed by HTML WG and RDFa Web Apps WG, and then moved over to RDFa WG for publication through to REC. The specification itself has been in development since 2009 and has undergone multiple full reviews by at least the following people:

  • Maciej Stachowiak (Apple, HTML WG)
  • Henri Sivonen (Mozilla, HTML WG)
  • Philip Taylor (HTML WG)
  • Leif Halvard Sili (HTML WG)
  • Stefan Schumacher (W3C German Translation of RDFa documents)
  • Stephane Corlosquet (RDFa WG, Drupal developer)
  • Ivan Herman (RDFa WG, PyRDFa developer)
  • Gregg Kellogg (RDFa WG, Ruby RDFa processor)
  • Alex Milowski (Green Turtle Javascript RDFa processor)
  • Niklas Lindstrom (RDFa WG, Clojure RDFa processor)

A list of all issues tracked by the HTML WG and RDFa WG are available (all issues have been resolved and have an official editor's or WG response):

Evidence of Interoperability

PyRDFa (Ivan Herman) and Ruby RDFa (Gregg Kellogg) pass all HTML5+RDFa 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 tests. A few other implementations are 95%+ compliant with implementers (Alex Milowski, Niklas Lindstrom, and Manu Sporny) commenting that they plan full 100% compatability when time allows them to make the updates for HTML5+RDFa 1.1.

Formal Responses to Last Call Issues

The only Last Call comment was an editorial change requested by Stefan Schumacher which was applied to the specification.

Formal Objections

The only formal objection to the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification was made by Tab Atkins Jr. arguing that the use of prefixes are too complicated for a Web technology. The RDFa WG made changes based on his feedback. Tab did not respond to the changes made (3 requests for feedback from Tab was made over the course of several months with no response from Tab). The RDFa WG does not believe the changes made would be enough to address the commenters request (that prefixes should be removed entirely or hard-coded).

  • Prefixes too complicated for a Web technology - The RDFa WG made changes to the specification based on the Formal Objection and requested a response on three different occasions across multiple months. No response was received by the submitter.

Requirement Fulfillment

All requirements regarding the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification of the RDFa Working Group have been fulfilled.