- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:14:29 +0000
- To: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>, Public RDFa <public-rdfa@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Lin Clark <lin.clark@deri.org>, Tobias Wunner <tobias.wunner@deri.org>
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 15:16 -0500, Stephane Corlosquet wrote: > This is correct and was brought in a previous thread. In fact we've > added this content:encoded mapping knowingly. However, despite the > fact this is not part of the RDFa specs, some parsers could ignore > this restriction and try to parse the content of this rdf:XMLLiteral. > I don't think there is any problem with that? expect convincing RDFa > parsers developers :D As an RDFa parser developer, I don't expect to add such a feature. It's a violation of the RDFa syntax specification, and if I were to change how I parsed XMLLiterals, it would cause me to fail the RDFa test suite. (I assume it would - if not, then there's a test that needs adding!) Drupal could add datatype="" to the element with property="content:encoded". This would allow parsers to recurse within it, however at the expense of creating a plain literal rather than an XMLLiteral. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 09:15:11 UTC