Re: HTML 4 Profile for RDFa

Tom Morris writes:
> RDFa minus XML Literals is probably no bad thing. I can't see a
> compelling use for XML Literals in RDFa anyhow. There's a reason why
> there's a TODO line in my RDF library that says "the thought of XML
> literals makes me want to wretch".

It's easy to use RDFa without XML Literals if you don't want them.

Option #1: add RDFa to elements that contain only text, no further 
markup, e.g.

   <span property="dc:title">My Blog Post</span>

Option #2: if that's not possible because of existing markup, use 
datatype="" on the RDFa element:

   <span property="dc:title" datatype="">My <em>blog</em> post</span>

which gives the triple:

   <> dc:title "My blog post" .

There are some good reasons to keep support for XML Literals in RDFa 
(sometimes you want the <sup> and <em> in there), but we also wanted to 
ensure that it was easy to do away with them if you need to.

-Ben