Hi Shane, > Hrm...... I strongly disagree. RDFa in XHTML defines, in clause 4.3, RDFa > Processor Conformance. Such a processor, in the context of XHTML, is an XML > Application - not an XML parser. It is not up to an RDFa Processor *at all* > to raise a fatal error when it encounters a well-formedness error. It > *might* be up to the underlying XML parser, but I don't know if it is really > a requirement that there be a fatal error in this case. > > This really comes down to something that has been discussed a few times, but > perhaps not state clearly enough... The architecture of RDFa, and in > particular an RDFa Processor, exists independent of the underlying parsing > model for the input - at least conceptually. There may be requirements on > these underlying parsers (XML well-formedness, HTML 5 parsing rules, tag > soup rules, etc.), but those requirements are imposed on the input stream > BEFORE that stream is seen by an RDFa Processor. In my mind, this is true > regardless of whether the RDFa Processor is a component of a tool chain or a > free standing implementation. The RDFa Syntax Recommendation makes no > representation about how the input is *parsed*. > > Mark, Ralph, Steven - what's your opinion?
I very much agree with you. We did try to use general notions like 'child nodes' and so on, in the parsing rules, rather than anything more explicit, so that -- as you say -- an RDFa parser could conceptually sit on top of SAX, a DOM, and anything else that might come along. So I agree that it's not our job to 'abort parsing' if the underlying processor has not decided to do so. (Which does raise the question about what @xmlns:xyz="" means, but I'm looking at that in a separate email.) Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, webBackplane mark.birb...@webbackplane.com http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, London, EC2A 4RR)
