Re: meta element

Ben Adida wrote:
> 
> Ivan wrote:
> 
>>However... I can
>>imagine that the meta element could also be used as some sort of an
>>escape mechanism to add more complex RDF statements when the core RDFa
>>becomes a bit awkward (e.g., involving lots of blank nodes, lists, etc).
>>I would then like to see something like
>>
>><meta>
>>  <rdf:RDF .....>
>> ... usual RDF/XML here ...
>>  </rdf:RDF>
>></meta>
>>
>>This could also be important to use copy/paste for additional materials
>>like, for example, CC statements that I would simply copy from my older
>>materials...
> 
> 
> This is not supported by the current specification.
> 
> 
>>Well, do we want that?
>>
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the current use of <LINK> to indicate a separate
> RDF/XML file is sufficient here, as there's no significant value here to
> having this inline. 

Probably true for 99%. The only small objection I would make is that if
I use inline RDF like the one above, I could use a <Description
about="#DFDFD"> referring to an ID appearing elsewhere in the HTML
content. Hm. Actually... could I? The exact RDF/XML spec for about=".."
may require the usage of rdf:ID and not an HTML:id...

No, I do not have a use case from the top of my head. I guess it would
refer to my original question on whether it is difficult or not to
express certain constructions (like lists) embedded into RDFa.

Having said all that and having sturred up some mud, I can see that we
can live without it... It is not a strong issue.

Ivan


> 
> -Ben
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf