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

(None at this moment)

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

(None at this moment)

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

(None at this moment)