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

Re: RDFa 1.1 and the future of RDFa 1.0

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 16:06:48 +0100
To: St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100503160648.165ccc4c@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
On Mon, 3 May 2010 13:29:46 +0000
St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:

> With RDFa 1.1 around the corner, is it safe to ship new applications
> (such as Drupal 7) with RDFa 1.0, or should we migrate to RDFa 1.1?
> Will RDFa parsers still understand RDFa 1.0 in say two years from
> now? (Note that the page templates included in Drupal 7 are all
> XHTML).

The RDFa Working Group's charter says specifically that we're supposed
to keep 1.1 compatible with 1.0. That is, RDFa 1.1 parsers will still
be able to read RDFa 1.0 documents; and RDFa 1.0 parsers will be able
to read RDFa 1.1 documents, though perhaps only see a subset of the
triples.

So you should be pretty safe sticking with 1.0 as a publisher.

There is one exception noted in the charter with regards to the default
datatype for literals - right now, in the case of:

	<span property="foaf:name">Albert <b>Einstein</b></span>

and XMLLiteral would be generated; but in RDFa 1.1 this *might* be
changed to a plain literal. (XMLLiterals would still be possible to
mark up, they'd just need an explicit datatype attribute.) We've not
made any changes in this area yet, but we have open issues in the
tracker.

> Is there any document listing the difference and/or benefits between
> RDFa 1.0 and RDF 1.1?

Not an official one yet, but Ivan's blog post offers a good summary:

http://ivan-herman.name/2010/04/22/rdfa-1-1-drafts/

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Monday, 3 May 2010 15:08:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:47 UTC