Re: Do the following examples generate any triples?

Shane McCarron wrote:
> XHTML-RDFa is based upon XHTML 1.1, not 1.0.  

Sorry, my bad, that is what I wanted to say:-)

>                                               And the group resolved to 
> permit @href everywhere because it enabled many use cases and didn't 
> break anything.  Ben or Ralph can no doubt cite the resolution.
> 

Ah, indeed:

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/34
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0110.html

You are right, I was wrong.

I withdraw my remark on 'edge case' (and the 'Really?':-)

Thanks!

Ivan



> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>
>>
>> Shane McCarron wrote:
>>> I have stayed silent through this whole debate 'cause I am basically 
>>> not qualified to debate how many angels can dance on the head of this 
>>> particular pin.  However, one thing you said here, Ivan, I felt I 
>>> needed to correct / expand upon:
>>>
>>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>> (Note that this may be considered as a mild edge case, too: after 
>>>> all, @href can appear on <a> only in XHTML1)
>>> Well - regardless of what is permitted in XHTML1, by which I assume 
>>> you mean XHTML 1.0, in XHTML + RDFa @href is allowed everywhere, more 
>>> or less.  So as we think about triple generation, we need to keep 
>>> that in mind.
>>>
>>
>> Really? I thought we decided that would not be the case some point in 
>> the past (I remember long debates about this) when we introduced 
>> @resource. The logic being to minimize the differences between 
>> XHTML1.0 and XHTML+RDFa to what is strictly necessary. But I may be 
>> wrong.
>>
>>> I now return you to your regularly scheduled technical debate.
>>>
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf