Shane McCarron wrote: > > >> which has an added bonus: we do not have a dependency on the >> advancement of the Role module as a recommendation (I am not sure what >> the timetable is there, with a bit of bad luck we might be suspended >> to go to Rec!) > I am happy to make this simple change. I do not believe we had a > dependency on the Role document anyway, since it was not a "normative" > reference. At least it should not have been. But that's fine. >> >> I also have a conformance question: is an RDFa implementation supposed >> to check the resources associated to @rel="role"? > What do you mean "check the resources" ? > If I understand it correctly, <span rel="role" resource="[xhv:copyright]">...</span> should not be valid (xhv being the XHTML namespace) because is it not one of the values defined as a permitted value for 'role' in the namespace document (although 'copyright' _is_ a defined term in the xhv namespace). So my question is: should an RDFa processor check this and ignore the triple? Or should it generate the triple nevertheless? 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
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 16:43:30 UTC