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

Re: Review of XHTML+RDFa 1.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xhtml-rdfa-20100803/) (Tom)

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:51:02 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinHSb31SXsBJbZfUnzD5nAeDrKN36hMvK72U05f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Hi Shane,

> I agree... I don't actually know why this is in here at all though.  The
> rule seems stupid to me... It always did.  The element in question should be
> 'html' shouldn't it?

Just because you can't remember the rationale, doesn't make it stupid... ;)

A common pattern that authors started to use around the time we
discussed this issue was placing a @typeof on <body> (and sometimes
<head>).

We agreed that we wanted the @typeof to apply to the document's URI
rather than generating new bnodes, but if we were to place this 'empty
@about' rule on <html> then we'd still get bnodes. I.e., it would have
the same effect as this:

  <html about="">
    <head typeof="a:Document">
      ...
  </html>

The rule that we actually adopted has the same effect as this:

  <html>
    <head about="" typeof="a:Document">
      ...
  </html>

Regards,

Mark
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 17:52:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:50 UTC