W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2009

Re: XMLLiteral handling in RDFa in HTML

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 06:58:34 +0100
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1243317514.8553.10.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 20:55 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
> So, thoughts on this issue?

I don't think that a big song and dance is needed over this. The issue
seems pretty simple to me. Sometimes an RDFa parser, dealing with HTML,
will hit a situation where it needs to generate an XMLLiteral from
non-wellformed HTML. In these situations, it seems to me that we have a
choice of three potential "the parser MUST" actions, all of which are
roughly consistent with RDFa in XHTML:

1. The parser MUST ignore this triple altogether. A simple solution, and
it means that the HTML graph would be a subset of the XHTML graph. RDF
vocabularies are generally defined so that if a graph G is true, then
any graph H such that H is a subset of G is also true.

2. The parser MUST add the triple to the graph as normal, but MUST NOT
set the literal's datatype to XMLLiteral. They could either leave the
literal as an untyped literal (that happened to have a lot of angled
brackets in it) or perhaps set it to some HTMLLiteral datatype of our
own concoction.

3. The parser MUST coerce the HTML fragment into a well-formed (but not
necessarily valid) XHTML fragment. The HTML5 draft gives us decent
algorithms for doing this.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these solutions, but
none of them seem especially bad solutions.

There are a number of other solutions that can be imagined, but most of
them do seem like especially bad solutions.

-- 
Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 05:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC