Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-42: @src, following up, proposal to resolve

Isn't this related to the issue raised by Ben in

http://www.w3.org/mid/46900890.3030500@adida.net

I got mixed up there on the issue of what exactly
the_attribute_that_shall_not_be_named refers to (which subject) and (if
my understanding is correct) Ben's proposal would introduce another case
where that attribute would not apply on the usual subject but rather to
an object. Am I wrong?

Ivan

Ben Adida wrote:
> 
> Mark recently led a discussion of the @src attribute, specifically @src
> on IMG. Here's how Mark summarized it:
> 
> ==========
> So to recap where this issue is at, so that those who haven't voted
> yet can state their preference, the sentiment is that the attributes
> with triple-generating potential on <img> are:
> 
>   <img about="s" rel="p" src="o" class="t">
> 
> and that 'type' applies to the object, 'o', rather than to the subject 's'.
> 
> As pointed out by Ben, in the sense that we have an element that
> contains an object that is also a subject, then this construct echoes
> striping. There may be scope for linking the two concepts in our
> documentation, or at the very least--which may be what Ben is
> saying--scope for showing that this isn't such a unique construct.
> 
> As for other attributes, such as @alt and @longdesc, we may or may not
> revisit those in the future, when we've learned a bit more about real
> life use-cases.
> ===========
> 
> 
> I propose that we resolve ISSUE-42 exactly as above for XHTML1.1+RDFa.
> 
> We'll discuss on Thursday if there are issues with the above conclusion!
> 
> -Ben
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf