Re: comments on RDFa Syntax

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> 
>> - I'm not sure what to think about not recursing down XML Literals... Is
>> that really what we want? What's the argument here?
>>
>> IMO, if the RDFa in the XML literal is not self-contained, then it's
>> going to be a *very* weird XML Literal to throw around. If it *is*
>> self-contained, e.g. with an enclosing @about and all required
>> namespaces, then why not parse the RDFa?
> 
> I hadn't thought of the whole issue at all until I was
> reverse-engineering Ivan's parser. :) 

:-) :-)

>                                        But it's not unlike having a
> script tag in a string, in JavaScript, or a comment in your C++--the
> rdf:XMLLiteral is effectively 'escaping' the mark-up, and so it can no
> longer be seen as a collection of triples, and is just a 'string' (so
> to speak).
> 
> If you put RDF/XML into an XML literal in an RDF/XML document, that
> too, would not be parsed for RDF.
> 

This is actually a very good example.

Now that the user has a clear way of deciding whether an XML Literal
should be generated or not, I think there is no reason why an already
'processed' portion of the DOM tree should be processed twice (once as a
Literal and once as an RDFa code...).

Ivan

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf