W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: RDFa parser behavior for @value in light of Issue-145

From: Faye Harris <fayeharris@google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:31:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHsM_BYNRxiHrjjk7v_RNC-HfdkoZCe9jj+W9jcoG_d8cKu-og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>, public-rdfa-wg <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
OK.

However, the same resolution indicates that @content should override @value
on the element. if I run Test
286<http://rdfa.info/test-suite/test-cases/rdfa1.1/html5/0286.html>now,
the new extraction should be the following instead:

sub: 'http://x.com/0286.html'
pred: 'http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#value'
obj: 'I came, I saw, I conquered'

If that's correct, then keeping and updating Test 286 would seem like a
good idea. :)

Thanks,
-- Faye

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 21:40 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 4, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Faye Harris <fayeharris@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> The resolution of Issue-145 says that a HTML+RDFa 1.1 parser should
not process @value. Test 286 has also been removed. Does that mean it would
be non-conforming for a parser to process an @value attribute? If so, I'd
recommend reinstating Test 286 as a negative test, where nothing is
extracted.
> >
> > The WG has always taken the stance that a processor is free to produce
more triples (this is why SPARQL is used to test results, rather than
explicit triples). The removal of @value is just reflecting that HTML5 no
longer has the <data> element with which it made sense. If you want to
continue to process that, i don't see any issues for my part. However, this
is just my opinion.
> >
>
> I agree.
>
> Ivan
>
> > Gregg
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> -- Faye
> >
>
>
> ----
> 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 Tuesday, 5 March 2013 17:32:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:58 UTC