- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:40:13 +0100
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- CC: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Yes, there are certainly additional ways to specify that a document contains RDFa, especially when dealing w/ transfer protocols. For instance: Link: <>;rel=meta That's supposing meta was actually a proper rel! (must put that on my to do list)! Best, Nathan Gregg Kellogg wrote: > The ongoing discussion on SWI [1] on the use of site maps and VoiD seems just as relevant for RDFa as any other RDF format. > > Gregg Kellogg > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2011Apr/0003.html > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 5, 2011, at 6:14 AM, "Nathan" <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Just a quick question, how does one tell whether an document contains, >> or does not contain, RDFa? >> >> Let's suppose I have an archive of 10k documents, I'd like to extract >> the RDFa on them, how can tell upfront that they contain RDFa, without >> having to process them all? >> >> a: I may have already asked this previously! >> >> b: This may be irrelevant for non-SAX based parsers (supposing that the >> bulk of the weight would be in syntax->DOM conversion, a step needed >> before any "this is RDFa flag" could be detected). >> >> Unsure whether this is even worth asking now.. >> >> Best, >> >> Nathan >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 15:41:04 UTC