Re: Determination of subjects/objects

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
>> The treatment of @id has not changed recently :)
> 
> But it seems to have...since it was always ignored before!! :)

No, that's not true. We've consistently said that:

<span id="foo">
<link rel="bar" href="baz" />
</span>

would yield

<#foo> bar baz .

(because of the LINK refering to the parent.) In fact, my parser code
has done this since day 1.

>  <a id="xyz" rel="license" href="http://cc/license">license</a>

I never said that this would yield subject <#xyz>, check my email again :)

> But it's worth pointing out that there are no references to this
> approach in the Primer, and in many places we actually use syntax like
> this (ignoring the out-dated use of @class, of course):

Mark, I can guarantee you the example I gave above was always agreed
upon, I'm pretty sure even by you. This is *only* in the case that an
element "turns into a bnode".

>  <p class="cal:Vevent" id="xtech_conference_talk"
> about="#xtech_conference_talk">
>    ...
>  </p>
> 
> which illustrates clearly that @id doesn't set the subject.

Correct, because it didn't at the time. The only change I'm proposing
here is that @instanceof now "turns the element into an RDF node", in
which case the ID gives it a name.

> My guess is that what happened was that at some point we _did_ agree
> to drop @id for the reasons I gave at the top, but that we
> inadvertently left one or two examples in the syntax document.

No, I really don't think that's the case.

-Ben