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: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 13:02:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4CCF00A2.1010306@aptest.com>
To: mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Yeah.  That.  Thanks Mark!

On 11/1/2010 12:51 PM, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> 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
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 18:03:06 UTC

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