Re: HTML+RDFa @datetime versus @value


  '<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.


On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Toby Inkster <> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 16:28:44 -0400
> Sebastian Heath <> 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
> <>
> <>

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 01:29:26 UTC