The value of base may change the initial value of [current subject]:
<base href="http://www.example.org/jo/blog" />
<title>Jo's Friends and Family Blog</title>
<link rel="foaf:primaryTopic" href="#bbq" />
<meta property="dc:creator" content="Jo" />
A parser should now generate the following triples, regardless of the
URL from which the XHTML document is served:
Re: "RDFa Processing in detail" gets some details wrong?
On 2010-2-3 23:33 , Dan Connolly wrote:
> In section http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_rdfaindetail >
> I see:
> The value of base may change the initial value of [current subject]:
> <base href="http://www.example.org/jo/blog" />
> <title>Jo's Friends and Family Blog</title>
> <link rel="foaf:primaryTopic" href="#bbq" />
> <meta property="dc:creator" content="Jo" />
> A parser should now generate the following triples, regardless of the
> URL from which the XHTML document is served:
> <http://www.example.org/jo/blog> foaf:primaryTopic <#bbq> .
> <http://www.example.org/jo/blog> dc:creator "Jo" .
> but when I made that example into a test case for the RDFa parser
> I'm developing, it failed, and I don't think the problem is
> in my code.
> That <#bbq> object should be <http://www.example.org/jo/blog#bbq>, no?
I think the text is wrong indeed. At least my RDF distiller generates
the full URI...
Error to be recorded...
> Then under 18.104.22.168. Using @about, the last 2 of the 5
> "should generate" triples look wrong:
> <#bbq> cal:summary "one last summer barbecue" .
> <#bbq> cal:dtastart "2007-09-16T16:00:00-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime .
> dtastart is an obvious typo.
> But "one last summer barbecue" suggests there's some sort of
> whitespace stripping in RDFa parsing, but step 9 in
> section 5 makes it pretty clear that there is no whitespace stripping
> in this case:
> "The actual literal is either the value of @content (if present) or a
> string created by concatenating the text content of each of the
> descendant elements of the [current element] in document order."
> These examples do help with understanding the spec quite a bit,
> but these details are a huge distraction.
> I strongly suggest (a) adding these examples to the test suite
> and (b) establishing an automated check that they stay in sync
> with the test suite.