W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > April 2007

Re: [RDFa] Wrap up of XMLLiteral issue

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:23:20 +0100
Message-ID: <640dd5060704120523v6d04378dg4d62a7ea51cf3873@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Hi Ivan,

> The only question I have is: what are the allowed values of @datatype?
> We had a mini-discussion with Mark on whether we would use something
> like @datatype="plain" when one wants plain literal even in case there
> is markup.

I'm not so sure it's as important now, and I'm also not convinced it
will be used. Also the potential for misunderstanding seems great! I'm
sure people will say to us, what are you doing indicating that
something has no datatype by using an invented datatype? :) There's
also the issue of what namespace is this value in...and so on.

Having said that, I suppose these objections could be addressed by
using datatype="" to indicate 'no type' which is more correct than 'a
type of plain literal' (which is not a type).

Ok, if we do leave this in, my vote would be to indicate plain
literals with an empty value of datatype. This essentially says 'I'm
overriding any default value for @datatype that the RDFa processor
might deduce for itself, and the override is that this element has
*no* datatype'.

Any thoughts on that?

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 12:23:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:04 GMT