Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-45: cite and longdesc support

On 10/03/2010 05:06 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Manu Sporny, Sun, 03 Oct 2010 13:35:44 -0400:
>> If there are no objections to this proposal in 7 days, we will close
>> ISSUE-45: cite and longdesc support.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/45
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-09-23#ISSUE__2d_45__3a____40_cite_and___40_longdesc_support
> 
>> This proposal asserts that there will be no special additions to RDFa
>> Core to enable the processing of @cite or @longdesc while clarifying
>> that any RDFa processor author may implement special processing
>> instructions for @cite and @longdesc without violating the RDFa
>> specification.
> 
> Please clarify whether you discussed RDFa Core or 
> XHTML+RDFa/HTML(5)+RDFa.

The discussion was around whether or not the RDFa WG should define new
language in a broad sense - specifically, we decided not to support
@cite and @longdesc in RDFa Core.

I presume that the decision also carried to XHTML+RDFa, so if anybody
else believes that it didn't, please speak up now.

Since we chose to not include @cite and @longdesc in RDFa Core and,
presumably, XHTML+RDFa, the group typically tries to align the HTML
family languages and thus there would be no spec-level support for @cite
and @longdesc in HTML+RDFa. The spec does not forbid the support of
@cite and @longdesc if a processor author wants to add that feature into
the RDFa processor.

However, the group that is handling HTML+RDFa is the HTML WG and a bug
would have to be logged against the HTML+RDFa spec in HTML WG to see how
that group would like to proceed with @cite and @longdesc support.

> In the minutes, as well as above, you spoke about "RDFa Core". Whereas 
> the title of ISSUE-45 made clear that the issue was about "XHTML+RDFa 
> and HTML+RDFa".

Yes, that's true. Forgive me for not remembering if we specifically
mentioned XHTML+RDFa or HTML+RDFa. My recollection is that the
discussion revolved more around the concept of "do we want to add /any/
specification text to address this issue" and the general consensus was
"no, we do not want to further complicate the specs". There was no
objection to that approach on the call, thus the proposal to close the
issue via the mailing list.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Saving Journalism - The PaySwarm Developer API
http://digitalbazaar.com/2010/09/12/payswarm-api/

Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 21:55:47 UTC