W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: HTML+RDFa @datetime versus @value

From: Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 21:28:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CACsb_1pEg2xNie8XbUYN2TBx38buuvczuV8KgAqCWOqmwt0Dfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>

  '<input property="xhv:test" value="foo" content="bar" />'

is valid html then it's reasonable to expect more than triple from it.
If an author puts that in, respect that intent. If s/he doesn't like
the triples produced, s/he can change the markup.

'<input property="xhv:test" value="foo" value="bar" />'

isn't valid html so shouldn't get as far as the distiller
(redefinition of @value). Actually, I'm more confident it isn't valid
xhtml so in xhtml+rdfa it wouldn't get to the distiller. If it is
valid html5, then yes, more than one triple is appropriate, of course.

I think the more general point is, if markup is valid there should be
a presumption of deriving reasonable triples from it. It's not the
WG's role to decide what is good markup and what isn't.


On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 16:28:44 -0400
> Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How about more than one triple
>> <> xhv:test "2011-01-01"^^xsd:date
>> <> xhv:test "Hello!"
> I think then people would start wanting more than one triple from:
>        <input property="xhv:test" value="foo" content="bar" />
> And probably some ridiculous people would want more than one triple
> from:
>        <input property="xhv:test" value="foo" value="bar" />
> --
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 01:29:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:56 UTC