W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Data blocks, not marked up content

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:49:33 +0100
Message-Id: <2C610DD9-21ED-4F36-9CBC-B2DF5C462E83@jenitennison.com>
To: public-html-data-tf <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>

On 7 Oct 2011, at 10:25, Lin Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> The microdata spec also allows, afaik, the <link> and <meta> elements in the body if used with microdata attributes. Which is a good approach. I would like to see that possibility extended to RDFa, too. The simplest approach would be to allow <link> and <meta> in the body in general. The RDFa processing model would handle those out of the box.
>> 
>> Maybe this is a recommendation this group could make to HTML5
> 
> I strongly agree on this. It would be poor usability otherwise, because there is no clear reason why one syntax should be different than the other in this regard, from a content author's perspective.

There is already a bug on this:

  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14114

and I agree that there should be consistency between RDFa and microdata here.

On the other hand, I don't know whether using <link> and <meta> in content is actually a good recommendation for users right now. Most browsers will move these elements up into the <head> of the document, which means that client-side RDFa/microdata parsers won't generate correct data for these documents. (This might be a problem for server-side parsers as well, I guess; I don't know whether off-the-shelf HTML5 parsers have the same problem.)

Is this something someone would volunteer to investigate so we have some solid basis for a recommendation here?

Thanks,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 09:49:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 October 2011 09:49:58 GMT