Re: [RDFa] XHTML 2.0 only? NO!

Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> 
> Looking at Tom Morris presentation at BarCamp London 2 [1] 
> raises the question, why - still - RDFa is denounced to be XHTML 2-only
> :(

This isn't surprising, people think extra attributes means XHTML2 only.
There's a bright side to this, though: he likes the RDFa syntax and he
says "if you don't care about validation...." which is exactly right
until we have an XHTML 1.1 module validator.

> I would like to trigger a 'RDFa PR campaign' to inform SW developers
> that RDFa is available with XHTML 1.1, already.

A very good point, but I would suggest holding off a bit until we have
the next version of the Primer and at least an updated (if not
published) version of the syntax. So, mid-March or so.

-Ben