W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: ISSUE-55: Re-enable @profile in HTML5 (draft 1)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:56:55 -0700
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <87DB5571-2096-4932-94FC-34B697A4CF30@apple.com>
To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>

On Sep 28, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Philip Taylor wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 2009, at 16:33, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> * RDFa uses @version, which is obsoleted in HTML5. RDFa is also  
>>> becoming
>>> a FPWD, so we have to resolve how we're doing @version and @profile.
>>> Either the signaling mechanism has to change for RDFa, or we
>>> have to figure out some cross-language extended processing behavior
>>> notification mechanism.
>> What does RDFa use @version for? What happens in XHTML if there is  
>> no @version?
>
> All the current RDFa-in-text/html processors I've tested have  
> apparently completely ignored the absence of @version. I haven't  
> noticed any RDFa-in-XHTML processors that care about it either, but  
> I've never tried testing them in much detail.

Sounds to me like @version should be dropped as a mandatory document  
conformance requirement, at least for HTML+RDFa, and probably for the  
next version of XHTML+RDFa.

  - Maciej


>
>
> Looking at some of the examples of RDFa deployment Mark gave  
> recently in some other thread:
>
>  http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/jobs/careers-detail.aspx?JobId=7808
>  http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/xgjw
>  http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=146898
>
> ...none seem to use (or suggest using) @version, nor do they use  
> @profile for RDFa.
>
>
> Looking at ~425K pages from dotnetdotcom.org, I see 30 pages with  
> <html version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0">, on 3 distinct sites.
>
> (The next most common value is 29 pages with version="-//W3C//DTD  
> XHTML 1.1//EN", on about 14 distinct sites.)
>
> Examining one page from each of those 3 sites:
>
> http://taringa.net/posts/musica/3519676/Freddy-Fender---The-Hits-Eamp;-More-Cd-Box.html 
>  tries to use foaf and dc but it doesn't declare xmlns:foaf or  
> xmlns:dc so a conforming RDFa processor will never extract any data  
> anyway.
>
> http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/419026/ seems to do things properly  
> (except for an undeclared prefix rel="cal:website" which is  
> presumably a typo of vcal).
>
> http://www.calames.abes.fr/pub/ms/D01041301 seems to do things  
> properly.
>
> So at least they are all actually using (or trying to use) RDFa.
>
> Meanwhile, about 180 pages on about 90 distinct sites use  
> rel="dc:*", indicating the use (or attempted use) of RDFa.
>
> So less than 2% of pages that apparently use RDFa use @version.
>
> This has not yet triggered the end of the world, so presumably RDFa  
> in practice works fine without @version.
>
> -- 
> Philip Taylor
> pjt47@cam.ac.uk
>
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 21:57:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:08 UTC