Re: Does RDFa processing recurse into content:encoded?

Thank you Manu.

Steph.

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>wrote:

> On 03/12/2010 04:36 AM, 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)?
>
> I believe that this one already exists:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/19
>
> > 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?
>
> Just created this one:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/20
>
> We are now tracking both of these issues, does that alleviate your
> concern, Stephane?
>
> -- 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/
>