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

Re: [RDFa] rdf:XMLLiteral (was RE: Missing issue on the list: identification of RDFa content)

From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:01:17 -0400
Message-ID: <45FACD5D.7040204@torrez.us>
To: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>
CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, mark.birbeck@x-port.net, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org


Are we neglecting the 80/20 rule? I think it comes in very handy
sometimes when we have strong technical reasons but no consensus from
the community.

I also prefer the default be plain literal since that's the most common
case as I believe Mark has acknowledged. If the author has markup and
wants XMLLiteral then she just adds datatype. I think that makes more
sense (even though Mark's email on the subject is so thorough and
technically convincing) because I am thinking of HTML as well.

For example, if XMLLiteral was so important, then people would need to
do something similar to what they do in Atom XHTML content payloads:
they wrap with a div and the xhtml namespace declaration. I think that
having XMLLiteral default w/o all of the baggage of xmlns prefixes and
such is not that useful. And if we were to add all of the processing to
make sure no xmlns prefix declaration is lost, then it's too much work.

Ian Davis wrote:
> 
> On 16/03/2007 16:20, Ben Adida wrote:
>> Ian Davis wrote:
>>> Yes, that doesn't cater for the <sup>2</sup> argument
>>
>> What would you suggest in that case with no datatype? Stripping HTML
>> tags?
> 
> Taking the string value:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#dt-string-value

At first I thought I'd rather have the markup, but I think you are
right. If we have markup in plain literals we run the risk of dealing
with crappy displays of titles containing HTML in feeds like with RSS. I
wonder if we need an XHTML specific datatype like Atom uses to indicate
in a model that this is XHTML and can be rendered in a browser. Maybe
XHTMLLiteral extends XMLLiteral? Is this crazy?

-Elias

> 
> Ian
> 
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 17:01:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:03 GMT