- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:26:49 +0100
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 10:26:19 UTC
I agree these are two different issues, and I agree they should be added to our issues' list. I let our chair decide on this and add them... Ivan On 2010-3-12 10:36 , Toby Inkster wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 16:30 -0500, Stephane Corlosquet wrote: >> I gave a quick glance at the open issues [1] but I could not find any >> on this topic, or this handled as part of another issue? > > As I see it there are two related questions: > > 1. Given a node that has no datatype attribute and non-textnode content, > such as: > > <span property="ex:foobar">Albert <b>Einstein</b></span> > > Should RDFa 1.1 generate an XMLLiteral (like RDFa 1.0 does), or generate > a plain literal (like most people seem to prefer)? > > 2. When an XMLLiteral is generated, in RDFa 1.0 descendant elements are > skipped for parsing. In RDFa 1.1, should we require descendant elements > to be parsed, should we keep the RDFa 1.0 behaviour, or should we > provide a mechanism for page authors to decide? > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf vCard : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 10:26:19 UTC