Re: Publish RDF Concepts as revised WD? (was: Re: Agenda 16 May telecon)

On May 16, 2012, at 14:17 , Steve Harris wrote:
>> Regarding ISSUE-63, HTML datatype: I think this is a Good Thing and will be popular. The most contentious point is the definition of the value space. It appears complex (DOM DocumentFragment nodes), but in reality it makes implementation of conforming parser *simpler* because it allows them to produce any of a number of equivalent results. The complexity only affects systems that decide to implement value-based comparison for HTML literals, something that is entirely optional. I expect few or no systems to do it.
> I see limited utility in being able to do = comparisons on non-lexically identical HTML5 fragments. But I may well be missing some important usecases.

If I look at

the attributes added to an HTML Literal have a 'semantic' role (controlling translations, for example) and these may result in an RDF graph (eg, via RDFa). Interaction with the user, running beautifying tools, etc, may change the Literal fragments without changing the intended semantics (ie, by retabulating the fragment to make it pretty...). Having a clear way on comparing the literals without just lexically comparing them looks really important.

I realize this is a bit vague, but the point is that the definition makes HTML Literals more robust against non-essential changes when combined with RDFa.


> - Steve

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 15:16:22 UTC