- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:05:22 +0100
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
On Nov 16, 2011, at 21:18 , Jeni Tennison wrote: > > On 16 Nov 2011, at 18:31, Gregg Kellogg wrote: >> On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 16:23 , Ivan Herman wrote: >>>> - ISSUE-113: Add the value attribute of the HTML data element as a possible literal target for property >>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/113 >>> >>> Yes >> >> +1: This is interesting, as <data @value> is intended to be "machine readable" data, which I interpret to mean having a datatype. It is specifically intended when the machine-readable value is different from a human readable format. This would imply to me that doing a lexical matching over a larger set of XSD datatypes would be appropriate, but it's not called out explicitly. > > > My strong feeling is that you shouldn't sniff datatypes based on the content of the value attribute -- it's too magic. I agree. > But not giving the value a language would be good. > Ah. I did not think of that detail... > Jeni > -- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 09:02:53 UTC