W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Does RDFa processing recurse into content:encoded?

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:26:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4B9A16E9.3070103@w3.org>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
I agree these are two different issues, and I agree they should be added
to our issues' list. I let our chair decide on this and add them...

Ivan

On 2010-3-12 10:36 , Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 16:30 -0500, Stephane Corlosquet wrote:
>> I gave a quick glance at the open issues [1] but I could not find any
>> on this topic, or this handled as part of another issue?
> 
> As I see it there are two related questions:
> 
> 1. Given a node that has no datatype attribute and non-textnode content,
> such as:
> 
> 	<span property="ex:foobar">Albert <b>Einstein</b></span>
> 
> Should RDFa 1.1 generate an XMLLiteral (like RDFa 1.0 does), or generate
> a plain literal (like most people seem to prefer)?
> 
> 2. When an XMLLiteral is generated, in RDFa 1.0 descendant elements are
> skipped for parsing. In RDFa 1.1, should we require descendant elements
> to be parsed, should we keep the RDFa 1.0 behaviour, or should we
> provide a mechanism for page authors to decide?
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF   : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf



Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 10:26:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:06 GMT