- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:19:21 +0100
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Toby Inkster wrote: > So how is the following to be interpreted? > > <html> > <head rel=":test" resource=""> > <base href="http://example.net/#foo" /> > </head> > </html> > > I can imagine arguments in favour of: > > <#foo> xhv:test <> . > <#foo> xhv:test <#foo> . > <> xhv:test <> . > > I think this needs clarification; not just in RDFa 1.1, but also as an > errata for RDFa 1.0. > Doesn't base have to be IRI/URI Absolute - ie no fragments allowed on a base (?) Best, Nathan
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 10:20:12 UTC