- From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:29:19 -0700
- To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > The editor's draft of RDF Concepts section on rdf:HTML Datatype [1] makes a specific callout about @lang needing to be included explicitly in the HTML literal. I presume that this reasoning also applies to any in-scope @xml:base (valid in XHTML5). So, if we consider the following: rdf:HTML is in terms of HTML syntax not the XHTML syntax. Thus... Authors must not use the xml:base attribute in HTML documents. For XHTML one would use the rdf:XMLLiteral. > > <div property="rdf:value" datatype="rdf:HTML" xml:base="http://example.com/foo"> > Interesting topic located <a href="bar">here</a>. > </div> This example of RDFa is confusing. The presence of xml:base seems to mean this is an XML document (XHTML? No namespace is given) however it's using the rdf:HTML type for it's content. I have no idea what the result of that should be :D xml:base is the least of worries in this case. > > The xml:base context in effect during processing would _not_ be retained in the literal. This is probably worth a similar note in the concepts document. > > Gregg > > [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-html > >
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 23:29:51 UTC