- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:45:47 -0600
- To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
- Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPJCua0YMDRAWCL6gG5RG9misjcMEKm1PkcSKk0eu6q5KBCLyQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>wrote: > >> >> As I know you know, if you expect markup to be preserved, you. Can do >> this in RDFa only with the rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:HTML datatypes, anything >> else will cause markup to be stripped. In microdata, all markup is >> stripped, as you can't indicate a datatype. Neither RDFa, nor any other >> HTML syntax I'm aware of have any special treatment for schema:Text. >> >> >> > I guess that's my real point here. I sure would like to use > rdf:XMLLiteral or rdf:HTML instead when I need to do so. > > It is a crying shame that markup is stripped for things like descriptions > under all situations. That will lead to people using escaped markup to get > what they want ... and I can't even imagine how that will actually work > well. > Agreed. As all of us who have straddled XML and RDF know very well, this is something RDF has never handled in a sensible manner, to RDF's great detriment. That said, it's hard to see how RDFa could do anything to paper over such a deep scar in the underlying RDF model. -- Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net Founding Partner, Zepheira http://zepheira.com http://wearekin.org http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/ http://copia.ogbuji.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji http://twitter.com/uogbuji
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2013 16:46:16 UTC