- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:49:57 -0500
- To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 01/07/2013 03:01 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > So I believe XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is all right as it is, and the > formulation added by Gregg to HTML5+RDFa is the right one. I disagree. We have a resolution that disagrees with the statement above. :) We got rid of these special rules because it is unnecessary in many of the use cases and is confusing to authors. We got rid of them because we wanted to reduce the number of magic subjects in RDFa 1.1. If we want to change this at this point, we can do that per the process. We'll have to re-open the issue because we closed it with a resolution: RESOLVED: Modify HTML+RDFa and XHTML+RDFa to modify processing steps #5 and #6 from assuming an empty @about value to assuming that new subject is set to the parent object. -- manu PS: I removed Gregg's text in the latest HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec because it was not aligned with the resolution that we had made before. I also think that the text in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is wrong and we need an errata on it, unless we're going to re-open this issue and discuss it again. -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: The Problem with RDF and Nuclear Power http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 02:50:28 UTC