- From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:27:42 -0500
- To: Faye Harris <fayeharris@google.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>, public-rdfa-wg <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGR+nnECa1OGez0eRvfKOHeCphtOt6JiJifoVnbX45dH_UXJyA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Faye Harris <fayeharris@google.com> wrote: > OK. > > However, the same resolution indicates that @content should override > @value on the element. I'm not sure I understand which resolution you are talking about. The resolution you pointed a "Do not process the @value attribute in HTML+RDFa 1.1." http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2013-01-17#resolution_2 The next one is: "@content overrides @datetime when found on the same element." I don't see any resolution saying that @value should be processed in any way. Steph. > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- Steph.
Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 20:28:09 UTC