- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:34:12 +0100
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Hi all: I have no strong opinion on either side; I just wanted to highlight that there is an issue, which can be fixed at either one of the two ends, either by fixing the Microdata spec or by catering for it in the MD2RDF conversion. In general, I have a slight preference to treat URLs for itemprop and href as mere identifiers and not resource locators and thus do only minimal canonicalization, e.g. attaching the base URI to relative identifiers. Martin On Oct 30, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote: > Gregg, Martin, > > What a headache. Are you raising this is an issue with the RDFWAWG? > > On 29 Oct 2011, at 21:33, Gregg Kellogg wrote: >> Martin raises some good points about URI modification required in the Microdata spec. I'll need to note this behavior in the Microdata to RDF spec, and it also needs to be considered as advice for people choosing between RDFa and Microdata. > > One thing we can do within the task force is advise authors to avoid using itemids that would resolve differently when used as URIs in the two situations, if we can characterise such URIs. > > I've asked Henry, Ted and Philip for help identifying what they might be and ways that we might create some tests. > > Thanks for raising this, > > Jeni > -- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com >
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 07:34:52 UTC