Re: PROPOSAL: Using @resource to define objects that are resources

Shane McCarron wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, are you suggesting that @content now be a URI type 
> instead of a CDATA type?  To date content has been a way of specifying 
> content for a property when you do not want to use the actual content 
> of the element in question.  I think, anyway.
>
On a related note, can anyone confirm that @content is intended purely 
for machine-readable content? (ie: will it suffer the same problems as 
using @title  has in microformats, or not?)

Keith