Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Original comment by dpalmis...@gmail.com
on 8 Jun 2011 at 4:14
add a check in the XSLT for the doctype. (default is RDF 1.0).
if doctype is 1.1 then process RDFa compliant to 1.1
Original comment by dpalmis...@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2011 at 10:44
Original comment by dpalmis...@gmail.com
on 18 Jun 2011 at 5:24
issue renamed.
why: it's not trivial to write an XSLT for RDFa1.1 as already be done for RDFa
and since the original request from the GoodRelations community was to
implement just the URI part of RDFa (as described below). I renamed this issue
to avoid ambiguities.
Hence the main aim of this issue will be to implement to the functionalities
described in specification sections[1]
- 5.1 (prefixed attributes) and
- 7.4 (CURIE and URI processing)
so to ensure an initial minimal support to the new data layout.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100422/
Original comment by dpalmis...@gmail.com
on 20 Jun 2011 at 4:41
Closed at Revision1298.
RDFa1.1 is completely backward compatible with RDFa1.0. This means that an
RDFa1.0 is also an RDFa1.1 valid document. For this reason the rdfa.xslt
transformation has been modified in the following mode:
- for every CURIE (as defined in RDFa1.1 core specification) we first search
for
the namespace definition with @prefix attribute. If unsuccessful we try to
search
the xmlns traditional definition.
The specification speaks quite clearly about this point:
"Mappings are defined via @prefix. For backward compatibility, some Host
Languages may also permit the definition of mappings via @xmlns. In this case,
the value to be mapped is set by the XML namespace prefix, and the value to map
is the value of the attribute — a URI. Regardless of how the mapping is
declared, the value to be mapped must be converted to lower case, and the URI
is not processed in any way; in particular if it is a relative path it is not
resolved against the current base. Authors should not use relative paths as the
URI."
Tests have been done on a simple HTML with all the various combinations of
prefix definition and CURIEs expansion and on on of the GoodRelations Test case
for Google[1].
[1] http://www.heppnetz.de/rdfa4google/testcases.html
Original comment by dpalmis...@gmail.com
on 25 Jun 2011 at 5:24
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
dpalmis...@gmail.com
on 8 Jun 2011 at 4:13