- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:06:12 -0700
- To: エリクソン トーレ <t-eriksson@so.taisho.co.jp>
- Cc: "public-rdfa-wg@w3.org" <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On May 27, 2013, at 9:24 PM, エリクソン トーレ <t-eriksson@so.taisho.co.jp> wrote: >> ISSUE-149 (HTML Literals): Merge HTML Literals into RDFa Core [RDFa 1.2+] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/149 >> >> Raised by: Manu Sporny >> On product: RDFa 1.2+ >> >> Alex Milowski suggested that we should move HTML Literals into RDFa Core. >> We currently support XML Literals in RDFa Core, so the argument that we >> shouldn't mention HTML Literals because RDFa Core is supposed to be >> language-agnostic seems like a weak argument. > > Wouldn't the right argument be that XMLLiteral is the only datatype built into > RDF itself? Yes, rdf:HTML is not defined in RDF 1.0, which is that RDFa 1.1 is based on. However, it is in RDF 1.1; a good time to re-charter the RDFa WG would be after RDF 1.1 is finished, so that we can align this, the difference in datatyped literals and other minor things. This could be a fairly narrow charter to do a minimal touch-up, so that RDF 1.1 systems know how to propertly handle RDFa. Gregg > Tore Eriksson
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 15:06:48 UTC