- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:47:03 +0100
- To: Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:50:22 +0300 Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com> wrote: > Empty values can be useful so I'd prefer to stick to the current > behavior. Empty values could still be expressed using the content attribute, so the desire to express triples containing the empty string as their object is not necessarily a reason not to proceed with this. A bigger concern would be the backwards compatibility issue. It's in the Working Group's remit to remain backwards compatible with RDFa 1.0 documents (with an exception for XML literals). -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2010 13:47:54 UTC