- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 13:34:53 -0500
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: RDFa Community <public-rdfa@w3.org>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4A0C644D.5050701@aptest.com>
Thanks for your comment. I have made some additional comments below: Toby Inkster wrote: > For XMLLiterals which aren't well-formed would it be a good compromise > to say that the literal should still be generated as normal (i.e. > including tags) but just shouldn't be given an rdf:XMLLiteral datatype? > > e.g. > > <p property="rdfs:comment">Hello<br>World</p> > > Generates: > > <rdf:Description about=""> > <rdfs:comment>Hello<br>World</rdfs:comment> > </rdf:Desciption> > > This makes it more consistent with XHTML+RDFa. > Some of us discussed this briefly earlier today. I actually do NOT believe this makes it consistent with XHTML+RDFa, but I still think it is something we should consider adding. In XHTML+RDFa that <br> would be omitted from the output (well, <br/> would be) if it were a plain literal, and would be included (and potentially annotated with in-scope xmlns declarations) if it were an XMLLiteral. There is NO mechanism in XHTML+RDFa to take the complete, unaltered content of a node and make that the object - encoded or not. The thing is that what you want at the end of the day is for every Conforming RDFa Processor to emit the same triples given the same input, right? So the behavior needs to be predictable. If we made the constraint: If the object of a triple would be an XMLLiteral, and the input to the processor is not well-formed [XML <http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/htmlwg/rdfa-html/#ref_XML>], then the processor MUST transform any reserved characters in the object to ensure it is well-formed (e.g., transforming '<' to <) The rules for such a transformation are defined at ... (some spec). So, in this case, the resulting item would continue to be typed as an XMLLiteral, and would adhere to the constraints of an XMLLiteral. Would such a change satisfy your comment? And if so, do you believe such a constraint should be added to the general processing rules of RDFaSYNTAX? Or is this unique to HTML4+RDFa? -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 18:36:03 UTC