- From: Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 21:28:55 -0400
- To: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
If '<input property="xhv:test" value="foo" content="bar" />' is valid html then it's reasonable to expect more than triple from it. If an author puts that in, respect that intent. If s/he doesn't like the triples produced, s/he can change the markup. '<input property="xhv:test" value="foo" value="bar" />' isn't valid html so shouldn't get as far as the distiller (redefinition of @value). Actually, I'm more confident it isn't valid xhtml so in xhtml+rdfa it wouldn't get to the distiller. If it is valid html5, then yes, more than one triple is appropriate, of course. I think the more general point is, if markup is valid there should be a presumption of deriving reasonable triples from it. It's not the WG's role to decide what is good markup and what isn't. -Sebastian. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2012 16:28:44 -0400 > Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com> wrote: > >> How about more than one triple >> >> <> xhv:test "2011-01-01"^^xsd:date >> <> xhv:test "Hello!" > > I think then people would start wanting more than one triple from: > > <input property="xhv:test" value="foo" content="bar" /> > > And probably some ridiculous people would want more than one triple > from: > > <input property="xhv:test" value="foo" value="bar" /> > > -- > Toby A Inkster > <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> > <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> >
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 01:29:26 UTC