W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > July 2010

Re: WD-rdfa-in-html-20100624 DTD related issues

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:39:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4C31EEB3.3090907@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 06/29/2010 02:18 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> I noticed a few issues in WD-rdfa-in-html-20100624 while trying to validate a 
> tiny document against the DTD.

Shane has fixed my bugs, updated the DTD and checked it via an SGML
checker tool. It should be correct now. I've updated the HTML5+RDFa spec
to include the new changes and updated the parts of the document that
were out-of-sync with the DTD.

> First, the DTD contains a couple of syntax errors, see two first hunks of the 
> attached diff.


> Second, the third hunk in the attached diff is there mostly just to highlight 
> that the example in section 2.1 "Document Conformance" of the spec does not 
> validate against the DTD.  Value of the version attribute in the example 
> should either be "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01+RDFa 1.1//EN" or the DTD changed to 
> match the example (which is what the diff does for illustration purposes).

Ah, yes - this can be confusing.

The DOCTYPE is a different concept from from the language @version.
We're currently discussing this in order to make it clear that @version
and DOCTYPE are not the same thing. We may even get rid of @version in
the RDFa 1.1 release. Here are a couple of examples in an attempt to
make this more clear:

The DOCTYPE for HTML5 is:
   <!DOCTYPE html>
The DOCTYPE for RDFa in an HTML5 document is:
   <!DOCTYPE html>
The DOCTYPE for RDFa in an HTML 4.01 document is:

The @version for HTML5:
   doesn't exist
The @version for RDFa in an HTML5 document is:
   "HTML+RDFa 1.1"
The @version for RDFa in an HTML4.01 document is:
   "HTML+RDFa 1.1"
The @version for RDFa in an XHTML1.1 document is:
   "XHTML+RDFa 1.1"
The @version for RDFa in an XHTML5 document is:
   "XHTML+RDFa 1.1"

The only thing that affects which DTD to use during validation is the

As you can see, all of this is confusing... so, we're contemplating the
removal or simplification of @version across all languages that use
RDFa. That said, Section 2.1 is correct in its current form.

> Third, the public id in the example of appendix B ("-//W3C//DTD HTML+RDFa 
> 1.1//EN") is not the one mentioned in the DTD, I suppose it should be changed 
> to "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01+RDFa 1.1//EN" ("DTD HTML 4.01" instead of "DTD 
> HTML") in the specification.


The new draft, incorporating all of the fixes, is available here:


Shane has updated the master HTML4.01 + RDFa 1.1 DTD:


-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Myth Busting Web Stacks - PHP is Faster Than You Think
Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 14:40:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:48 UTC