- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 13:10:20 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Jan 7, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > On Jan 7, 2013, at 18:43 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 2013, at 1:48 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 7, 2013, at 03:40 , Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> ISSUE-145: @content override @value >>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/145 >>>> >>>> PROPOSAL: When both @content and @value appear on the same HTML element, >>>> the value of @content MUST be used. >>>> >>> >>> >>> +1. >> >> Note that @value seems to be of extremely dubious value > > Dubious value (sic!) because the HTML5 definition are unclear or for RDFa? If the former then I think this WG should not take side on that, and leave it as is... My read of the HTML5 doc shows only a couple of uses of @value: The li element used within an ol, where @value is an integer (ordinal value) Various form controls, where it is used as the value of the control None of these seem to be valid meta-data use cases to me, so I don't see why this attribute should be called out in HTML+RDFa at all. Gregg > Ivan > > >> , and I suggest that we just drop it entirely. I marked it as being at risk. >> >> If we did keep it, I agree that @content must be used first; same for @datetime. >> >> Gregg >> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ---- > 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 Monday, 7 January 2013 18:11:15 UTC