- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:39:19 -0600
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
It is in scope because we define a proscriptive list of values for @rel/@rev and other (unscoped) values are not valid / do not produce triples. However, if people feel that it is inappropriate to make that a legal value in conforming XHTML+RDFa documents, I will let it drop. Ben Adida wrote: > Shane McCarron wrote: > >> I guess I was proposing "transformation" in the XHTML vocab# space is >> because the already use it and they are a REC. I don't think we should >> second guess their choice, but with our current language for XHTML 2 and >> XHTML+RDFa their value would be invalid. And that seems >> counter-productive. >> > > Except they use it *only* when there's a GRDDL @profile, and I'm pretty > sure DanC would say that it shouldn't mean anything without a @profile > (follow-your-nose.) > > Also, why is this in scope? > > -Ben > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 22:39:42 UTC