- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 09:10:43 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Manu, though I am back home, and begin to look at some of my mails, I would still send my regrets for this. I am not yet in shape to do that:-( Sorry about that Just giving my immediate reactions to the issues, though, see below On Dec 7, 2011, at 07:25 , Manu Sporny wrote: > Hi all, > > NOTE: The duration for the telecon this week will be 120 minutes - > please block out your time accordingly. We are going to attempt to get > through as many issues as possible in order to get new Working Drafts > out by the end of the year. > > Below is the preliminary agenda for our telecon this week. If you have > any additions or modifications to the agenda, please send them to the > mailing list or mention them on the telecon before we get started. > > ========== > Thursday, December 1st 2011 > Time: 1400 UTC, 7am San Francisco, 10am Boston, 3pm London > W3C Zakim bridge, telecon code: RDFA (7332) > SIP: zakim@voip.w3.org > Phone US: +1.617.761.6200 > irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa > Duration: 120 minutes > Scribe: Steven, Benjamin, Ted, Ivan, Benjamin, Tom > ========== > > Agenda > ------ > > 1. ISSUE-114: HTML5 coerces @href/@src values to URLs instead of IRIs > * http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/114 I am not sure what we can do about this, beyond warning users that this is what happens... > 2. ISSUE-117: Disallowing @about on <html> element > * http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/117 My impression is that the issue title has become a misnomer, and the solution put forward is that RDFa HTML should not have the extra rule on an implicit empty @about on <head> and <body>. The default @about on the top level element, ie, <html> is fine and disallowing an explicit @about there becomes unnecessary... I would be happy to go along such a change. > 3. ISSUE-121: Use @id to set the subject in RDFa > * http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/121 I am not convinced that the use cases warrant an additional level of complication in the RDFa definition. I would prefer not to take this. > 4. ISSUE-122: @datatypeLibrary attribute > * https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/122 I am not convinced that the use cases warrant an additional level of complication in the RDFa definition. I would prefer not to take this. > 5. ISSUE-123: HTML Literals > *https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/123 Defining a new literal is not an easy matter. The RDF WG is currently discussion the issues and possible changes on the XML literal datatype and the HTML Datatype is also an open issue for the RDF WG. Let them do that. I think that, for RDFa, the only thing we can do is to add a note to the document referring to the fact that this is under discussion at the RDF WG and saying something like if an HTML Datatype is defined, RDFa processors in the future might understand that datatype and may process it similarly to the XML Datatype, ie, putting out the subtree verbatim. That being said, it may not always be easy. In my case, the HTML5 Parser produces a DOM tree and, in that DOM tree, what I see is not the HTML content textually, but the DOM information instead. When generating a literal I would actually produce an XML Literal, not an HTML Literal; I am not even sure how I could produce the original textual content... Cheers Ivan > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: Standardizing Payment Links - Why Online Tipping has Failed > http://manu.sporny.org/2011/payment-links/ > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 08:11:39 UTC