- From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:01:17 -0400
- To: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>
- CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, mark.birbeck@x-port.net, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Are we neglecting the 80/20 rule? I think it comes in very handy sometimes when we have strong technical reasons but no consensus from the community. I also prefer the default be plain literal since that's the most common case as I believe Mark has acknowledged. If the author has markup and wants XMLLiteral then she just adds datatype. I think that makes more sense (even though Mark's email on the subject is so thorough and technically convincing) because I am thinking of HTML as well. For example, if XMLLiteral was so important, then people would need to do something similar to what they do in Atom XHTML content payloads: they wrap with a div and the xhtml namespace declaration. I think that having XMLLiteral default w/o all of the baggage of xmlns prefixes and such is not that useful. And if we were to add all of the processing to make sure no xmlns prefix declaration is lost, then it's too much work. Ian Davis wrote: > > On 16/03/2007 16:20, Ben Adida wrote: >> Ian Davis wrote: >>> Yes, that doesn't cater for the <sup>2</sup> argument >> >> What would you suggest in that case with no datatype? Stripping HTML >> tags? > > Taking the string value: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#dt-string-value At first I thought I'd rather have the markup, but I think you are right. If we have markup in plain literals we run the risk of dealing with crappy displays of titles containing HTML in feeds like with RSS. I wonder if we need an XHTML specific datatype like Atom uses to indicate in a model that this is XHTML and can be rendered in a browser. Maybe XHTMLLiteral extends XMLLiteral? Is this crazy? -Elias > > Ian >
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 17:01:42 UTC