W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Text vs Markup Datatype

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:03:42 -0700
Message-Id: <F9848700-FE29-4BF0-8C74-7DEB8C614BEB@greggkellogg.net>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
On Aug 26, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote:

> While I understand motivations for considering the Text datatype [1] to be a simple string, I find myself wanting the ability to type something as markup.  That is, I want a rich description of an object as well.
> 
> In RDFa, this is rather straightforward:
> 
> <div property="description" datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral">
> <p>Now markup is allow!</p>
> <u>l
> <li>Red</li>
> <li>Green</li>
> <li>Blue</li>
> </ul>
> </div>
> 
> gives the output (Turtle):
> 
> <> schema:description """<p>Now markup is allow!</p>
> <u>l
> <li>Red</li>
> <li>Green</li>
> <li>Blue</li>
> </ul>"""^^rdf:XMLLiteral .
> 
> There isn't much at [1] that restricts its interpretation but I somehow doubt this use was the intent.
> 
> The question really is: I can do this but what should I expect receiving systems to do with it?

As I know you know, if you expect markup to be preserved, you. Can do this in RDFa only with the rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:HTML datatypes, anything else will cause markup to be stripped. In microdata, all markup is stripped, as you can't indicate a datatype. Neither RDFa, nor any other HTML syntax I'm aware of have any special treatment for schema:Text.

Gregg

> [1] http://schema.org/Text
> 
> -- 
> --Alex Milowski
> "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
> inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
> considered."
> 
> Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Monday, 26 August 2013 21:09:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:29 UTC