- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:33:23 -0500
- To: "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
And yes. This DOES conflict with something I said earlier. With regard to issue 277 (http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/227) I said that @datatype should be interpreted as "". I wasn't thinking about it the right way when I sent out that note and I was mistaken. I think a processor MUST behave as if there were no @datatype at all in that case. Shane McCarron wrote: > One issue that has come up recently is that we use inconsistent > language in the RDFa Syntax Recommendation when discussing illegal > values in attributes (thanks Philip!). > Basically, in the current Recommendation we talk about attributes > being ignored when the value(s) are illegal. I believe that when we > say this (and we say it in a couple of different ways), we ALWAYS mean: > > "When an attribute has no legal values, a conforming RDFa Processor > MUST act as if the attribute were not present at all. The processor > MUST NOT act as if the attribute were present, but with the empty > string as its value." > > So, for example, > > <a rel="blah:blah" href="file.html">something</a> > > Would never generate triple, because the prefix "blah" is not defined, > so the system MUST act as if there was no @rel at all. > > <span property="blah:blah" datatype="blah:blah">some content</span> > > Would also generate no triples, since there would effectively be no > @property AND no @datatype attributes. > > I don't think there is any disagreement on this point, but it is > important and perhaps we should get a formal resolution on the books > and a note in the errata document just so we eliminate this one area > of potential confusion. > > Ben, please put this on the agenda for Thursday. > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2009 20:34:08 UTC