W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:09:30 +0200
Message-ID: <4A72444A.2030305@malform.no>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak On 09-07-31 01.35:

> Here's an interesting side note: HTML5 actually has a hook for 
> open-ended extension by other specs. 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#semantics-0> "Authors must 
> not use elements, attributes, and attribute values that are not 
> permitted by this specification or *other applicable specifications*." 
> [emphasis mine]
> 
> While less formal than the XHTML Modularization mechanism, it seems to 
> allow a specification external to HTML5 could define RDFa additions 
> without also having to copy the full text of HTML5. Validators could 
> then choose to support profiles that do or don't support RDFa, based on 
> market demand. I think a draft that just defined the RDFa additions 
> would engender less potential controversy than a full alternative draft 
> of all of HTML5.

I suppose "applicable" is the keyword there. HTML 5 defers the 
values of the media attribute to the CSS Media Query 
specification. That to me makes an example of what is meant w.r.t. 
to "attribute value". Or perhaps it is meant specs of the 
microformats kind - narrowing sub-specifications so to say?

I would not have guessed on the interpretation you give here. But 
it would be interesting if it were as you say ...  I wonder how 
one would decide the profile.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 01:10:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 31 July 2009 01:10:14 GMT