- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:49:01 -0700
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Ben, > >> The treatment of @id has not changed recently :) > > But it seems to have...since it was always ignored before!! :) No, that's not true. We've consistently said that: <span id="foo"> <link rel="bar" href="baz" /> </span> would yield <#foo> bar baz . (because of the LINK refering to the parent.) In fact, my parser code has done this since day 1. > <a id="xyz" rel="license" href="http://cc/license">license</a> I never said that this would yield subject <#xyz>, check my email again :) > But it's worth pointing out that there are no references to this > approach in the Primer, and in many places we actually use syntax like > this (ignoring the out-dated use of @class, of course): Mark, I can guarantee you the example I gave above was always agreed upon, I'm pretty sure even by you. This is *only* in the case that an element "turns into a bnode". > <p class="cal:Vevent" id="xtech_conference_talk" > about="#xtech_conference_talk"> > ... > </p> > > which illustrates clearly that @id doesn't set the subject. Correct, because it didn't at the time. The only change I'm proposing here is that @instanceof now "turns the element into an RDF node", in which case the ID gives it a name. > My guess is that what happened was that at some point we _did_ agree > to drop @id for the reasons I gave at the top, but that we > inadvertently left one or two examples in the syntax document. No, I really don't think that's the case. -Ben
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 16:52:20 UTC