On 16 Sep 2009, at 18:19, Philip Taylor wrote: > Are you suggesting that Google should intentionally violate the > RDFa specification? Or are you suggesting the RDFa specification > should be relaxed to allow implementers freedom in handling invalid > documents? I think it must be one or the other, as long as Google > is claiming to implement RDFa. Neither. I am claiming that implementers will often want to implement a superset of RDFa. e.g. they'll want to parse RDFa plus some other HTML semantics (like <blockquote@cite>, <title>, etc). -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 17:25:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 September 2009 17:25:01 GMT