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

Re: ISSUE-15 PROPOSAL: @version attribute in HTML5

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:27:49 +0100
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100708082749.146fa704@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:35:07 -0400
Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> We have a couple of options in front of us, that could be combined:
> 
> 1. Keep everything as it is right now, ignoring the polyglot
>    ramifications of the decision.
> 2. Harmonize the HTML5+RDFa and XHTML5+RDFa @version strings.
> 3. Specify that @version SHOULD NOT be used unless an author
>    would like to force the RDFa Processor into a particular mode.

We could say that @version is a plus-separated list of features in use,
and that RDFa processors can split it on the '+', and only need to
concern themselves with the feature that matches the regular expression

	/RDFa(\s.+)?/i

If the 'HTML' and 'XHTML' features are respectively defined as 'can be
parsed as HTML' and 'can be parsed as XHTML', then a polyglot document
could legitimately use any of:

	HTML+RDFa 1.1
	RDFa 1.1+HTML (order is not important)
	XHTML+RDFa 1.1
	XHTML+HTML+RDFa 1.1
	RDFa 1.1

One can even imagine people aiming to build polyglot RDFa 1.0 and RDFa
1.1 documents - i.e. documents that yield the same graph parsed as
either version of RDFa:

	XHTML+RDFa 1.0+RDFa 1.1

This interpretation of the @version attribute should be compatible with
the XHTML+RDFa 1.0 Rec.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 07:28:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT