- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:57:27 -0400
- To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 04/26/2010 11:49 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: > I am reviewing the current source version of the API, and I noticed > there is no explicit handling of XML Literals. I know that these are > just a special case of a typed literal, but since we deal with the > specially in RDFa, it seems to me we should either define a class for > them OR indicate that they are grouped with Typed Literals. > > What do people think? At this moment in time, I think that we should mention that they are grouped with Typed Literals... I don't see what extra methods we would need to expose so that XMLLiterals are "easier" to use via the RDFa DOM API. XMLLiterals are one of those things that most RDFa developers don't need or use - so adding a separate mechanism to deal with them in the RDFa DOM API seems like we're adding a feature for a corner case. The only thing that creating a separate XMLLiteral object might buy us is easily converting to/from and inserting/removing DOM Node/Element objects. Even if we were to have such a mechanism, I can't think of a commonly required use case for that feature. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Monday, 26 April 2010 15:57:56 UTC