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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:32:40 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0909281732x2bb7d970t6bebe92cf9d435ef@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> However the version *identifier* seems like something
>> you can wait with until version 2. Simply let the absence of a version
>> identifier identify that version 1 is used.
>
> But that's completely counter to what HTML5 is doing, isn't it? It's not
> what most of these languages do. The HTML5 spec assumes that, barring
> any version specifiers, that the author is using the latest version of
> HTML (version 5) or XHTML (version 5). I believe the same is true for
> SVG and I know the same is true for RDFa. Without a version specifier,
> the parser assumes the latest version of the language.

HTML5 doesn't intend to do versioning at all. I.e. no future version
can be incompatible with existing content. So the change you were
describing for RDFa of changing the default data type isn't a change
that future versions of HTML can do. So HTML doesn't have any version
identifiers.

So yes, in a sense what I was proposing for RDFa is contrary to what
HTML5 does. However my understanding was that RDFa wanted to do
versioning which means that you can't do the same thing as HTML. I
would personally recommend that RDFa follow the strategy that HTML
uses, however I'm leaving that decision to the RDFa community.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 00:33:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:49 GMT