- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:59:28 -0400
- To: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- CC: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On 03/12/2010 04:36 AM, 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)? I believe that this one already exists: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/19 > 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? Just created this one: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/20 We are now tracking both of these issues, does that alleviate your concern, Stephane? -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Monday, 15 March 2010 01:00:00 UTC