RDFa 1.1. Errata

This page lists the open Errata for the official RDFa 1.1 Documents. These documents were originally published by the RDFa Working Group; that Working Group is now closed and the errata are managed by the W3C staff. The staff will, when necessary, publish Edited versions of the documents to fold in editorial errata or errata that add no new features or change existing deployments.

Anybody with a valid W3C User account can edit this page. When adding an errata, please follow the structure below.

See also the editing history of this errata page.

Errata for: RDFa Core 1.1 - Third Edition, published: 2015-03-17

Mischaracterises Microformats by referring to many years old spec

Date of record: 2017-05-22

What: The abstract mischaracterises Microformats by describing the Microformats 1 approach.

Where: Fourth paragraph of the Abstarct

RDFa shares some of the same goals with microformats [MICROFORMATS]. Whereas microformats specify both a syntax for embedding structured data into HTML documents and a vocabulary of specific terms for each microformat, RDFa specifies only a syntax and relies on independent specification of terms (often called vocabularies or taxonomies) by others.

This ignores Microformats 2 which separates the syntax from the vocabulary by defining class prefixes that indicate to a parser what part of the HTML document to reuse, and supports arbitrary vocabularies. (Microformats 2 was published in 2010 and has been stable since 2012).

Proposed Solution: Change "Whereas microformats specify both a syntax for embedding structured data into HTML documents and a vocabulary of specific terms for each microformat," to "Whereas microformats 1 specified both a syntax for embedding structured data into HTML documents and a vocabulary of specific terms for each microformat, like microformats 2 "

Originator: Review of document via tweeted link

• Incorrect citation. The cited tweeted link for originator has nothing to do with this issue or microformats. --Sarven Capadisli (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Category: Editorial

Errata for: RDFa Lite 1.1 - Second Edition, published: 2015-03-17

Conformance to RDFa 1.1 Core

Date of record: 2015-03-17

What: The Conformance Clause uses the wrong RFC2119 term to refer to RDFa 1.1 Core

Where: Third bullet item of Document Conformance (section 3.1).

Proposed Solution: Change "SHOULD" to "MUST"

Originator: Formal objection in the course of the PER call leading to the latest Recommendation, followed by discussions with the team.

Category: Editorial

Normative reference to the RDFa initial contexts

Date of record: 2015-03-17

What: The current document does not make it sufficiently clear, normatively, that RDFa 1.1 Lite documents may rely on a number of predefined prefixes through the initial context mechanism.

Where: Document Conformance (section 3.1).

Proposed Solution: Add the following additional clauses to the bullet items:

• A document MUST rely on the prefixes defined through the RDFA 1.1 initial context [rdfa-core] to process predefined prefixes. The initial context consists of the RDFa 1.1 Core [rdfa-core] initial context (http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1), plus any other initial contexts specified by the Host Language; for example, (http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/html-rdfa-1.1) for HTML+RDFa 1.1. For the details on the processing of the initial context, please refer to the RDFa 1.1 Core Processing Model.

• A document MUST NOT be required to specify prefixes already defined by the RDFA 1.1 initial context in order for them to be used in the document.

Originator: Formal objection in the course of the PER call leading to the latest Recommendation, followed by discussions with the team.

Category: Editorial

Errata for: HTML+RDFa 1.1 - Second Edition, published: 2015-03-17

Using <data>, <input> and <li> along with @value

Date of record: 2015-03-20

What: HTML’s <data> element and its @value attribute are currently not defined for an RDFa processor, although it could be used to generate literal values.
It could also be useful to define @value for RDFa data processing of other elements where it is allowed, namely:

• <li> elements inside <ol> lists. There are cases where it's semantically relevant to identify the position of an object in a series. HTML allows it by giving an explicit value to list items where order matters (though this would force authors to use another element, e.g. <span>, to mark up the real content of the list item, but it seems reasonable).
• <input> (especially when in read-only mode, these are cases where @value matters).

Where: Additional RDFa Processing Rules

Proposed Solution: Add an item to the bullet list on <data>, <input> and <li> for @value.

Originator: request coming from Andrea Rendline

Category: Substantial (adds a new technical feature)

Errata for: XHTML+RDFa 1.1 - Third Edition, published: 2015-03-17

Date of record: 2015-11-18

What: The XML Schema Implementation of the XHTML+RDFa 1.1 language has some errors that prevent it's being used to validate content. Specifically:

• xh11d:PREFIX is not defined
• xh11d:TERMorCURIEoAbsIRI is not defined
• xh11d:TERMorCURIEorAbsIRIs is not defined

These all need to be defined in xhtml-datatypes-1.xsd

Where: In several files within http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA and within XHTML_RDFa XML Schema as detailed below:

In xhtml-datatypes-1.xsd:

• The definition of LanguageCode did not permit lang to be the value "", even though this is expressly allowed
• The definitions of the dataypes from RDFa Syntax 1.1 were not included
• The regular expressions for various basetypes (e.g., CURIE) were not updated to reflect the examples in RDFa Core

In xhtml-metaAttributes-2.xsd:

• The definition for datatype used the wrong name for TERMofCURIEorAbsIRI
• The definitions for typeof, property, rel, and rev used the wrong name for TERMorCURIEorAbsIRIs
• The definition for prefix referred to xh11d:PREFIX, but should really be xh11d:PREFIXes (a list of zero or more PREFIX)

In xhtml-rdfa-2.xsd:

• The definition of the meta element and its attributes did not permit the lang attribute and used incorrect datatype names for datatype, typeof, prefix, property, rel, and rev

In xhtml-rdfa-modules-2.xsd:

• the module incorrectly referenced xhtml-metaAttributes-1.xsd instead of xhtml-metaAttributes-2.xsd (the implementation module for XHTML+RDFa 1.1)
• the html element did not permit the lang attribute nor the RDFa attributes
• the head element did not correct include the RDFa attributes

In xhtml-rdfa-model-2.xsd:

• the documentation link was to rdfa-syntax (the XHTML+RDFa 1.0 short name) rather than to rdfa-core (the XHTML+RDFa 1.1 short name)

Proposed Solution: Fix the files in non-date space immediately. Update the versions attached to the Recommendation if it is ever re-published. Since the Recommendation points to the non-date space for the latest version of these files, users of the Recommendation can follow their nose to the fixed versions immediately.

Originator: Jos van den Oever (jos.oever@koop.overheid.nl)

Category: Substantial. There is an error in the normative implementation of the XML Schema

Errata for: RDFa 1.1 Primer - Third Edition, published: 2015-03-17

(None at this moment)