- From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:15:31 +0100
- To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, <bob@snee.com>
Ben, >Michael: we should have a test case for this, to make sure random IDs >are not being picked up by mistake. Sure. How about using Tracker to raise an issue :) ? Cheers, Michael [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/ ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hausenblas, MSc. Institute of Information Systems & Information Management JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH http://www.joanneum.at/iis/ ---------------------------------------------------------- >-----Original Message----- >From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org >[mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Adida >Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:34 AM >To: bob@snee.com >Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org >Subject: Re: question on RDFa subject resolution > > > >This is a bug in the rdflib implementation: it should only look for the >ABOUT attribute in the ancestor hierarchy. > >Michael: we should have a test case for this, to make sure random IDs >are not being picked up by mistake. > >-Ben > >Bob DuCharme wrote: >> The following seems oversimplified, but it does seem to reflect the >> behavior I see in the RDFlib implementation of RDFa: when an RDFa >> processor is looking for a subject to go with a predicate >and an object, >> it searches up the ancestor axis until it finds either an >about attribute >> or an id attribute. The first of either that it finds >becomes the subject >> for the triple. >> >> If this is an oversimplification, what am I missing? The >syntax document >> is a bit vague on the potential role of id attributes as subjects as >> compared with about attributes. >> >> thanks, >> >> Bob >> >> > > >
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 08:16:57 UTC