W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Correction needed to rdfa syntax 1.0

From: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:35:56 +0100
Message-ID: <4C1F78CC.6000508@mac.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>, baran_H <baran.ha@gmail.com>
On 21/06/10 14:37, Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:29:01 +0100
> Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> This conflicts with <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_5.5.1020>,
>> where @src is only used to provide a subject.
> 
> In fact, any of @about, @src, @resource and @href can be used to set
> either the subject or the object.

Right (and of course @rev can do that too). I should have been more
specific: sec 5.5 5 (which deals with the presence of @rel and @src).

> Though the quote you mentioned:
> 
>> A [URI resource] object can be set using one of @rel or @rev to
>> express a [predicate], and then either using one of @href, @resource
>> or @src to provide an object resource explicitly
> 
> ... doesn't seem to be referring to that. It seems to be a relic of
> very old drafts where @src was treated more like @href.
> 

The reporter (ccd) thought:

<img about='#personX' rel='foaf:img' src='http://xy.com/X.jpg' />

would work. Not unreasonable. I had to check whether @src was like @href
myself.

Thanks Toby,

Damian
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 14:36:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:46 UTC