- From: Faye Harris <fayeharris@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:31:20 -0800
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>, public-rdfa-wg <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHsM_BYNRxiHrjjk7v_RNC-HfdkoZCe9jj+W9jcoG_d8cKu-og@mail.gmail.com>
OK. However, the same resolution indicates that @content should override @value on the element. if I run Test 286<http://rdfa.info/test-suite/test-cases/rdfa1.1/html5/0286.html>now, the new extraction should be the following instead: sub: 'http://x.com/0286.html' pred: 'http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#value' obj: 'I came, I saw, I conquered' If that's correct, then keeping and updating Test 286 would seem like a good idea. :) Thanks, -- Faye On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 2013, at 21:40 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 4, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Faye Harris <fayeharris@google.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> The resolution of Issue-145 says that a HTML+RDFa 1.1 parser should not process @value. Test 286 has also been removed. Does that mean it would be non-conforming for a parser to process an @value attribute? If so, I'd recommend reinstating Test 286 as a negative test, where nothing is extracted. > > > > The WG has always taken the stance that a processor is free to produce more triples (this is why SPARQL is used to test results, rather than explicit triples). The removal of @value is just reflecting that HTML5 no longer has the <data> element with which it made sense. If you want to continue to process that, i don't see any issues for my part. However, this is just my opinion. > > > > I agree. > > Ivan > > > Gregg > > > >> Thanks, > >> -- Faye > > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 17:32:28 UTC