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

Re: Does RDFa processing recurse into content:encoded?

From: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:34:45 -0500
Message-ID: <1452bf811003150334n2b2e217dt77e6d97f209d93bf@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Thank you Manu.

Steph.

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>wrote:

> 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 10:38:06 GMT

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