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

Re: [RDFa] Wrap up of XMLLiteral issue

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:06:08 +0200
Message-ID: <461E3CD0.7050400@w3.org>
To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Mark Birbeck wrote:
> 
> 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'.
> 

I agree with that.

I.


> Any thoughts on that?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 14:05:42 GMT

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