W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values [Final Take?]

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:51:55 +0200
Message-Id: <1EC517D4-400C-480F-9D2C-95A21B06B8CD@w3.org>
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
Alex,

as far as I am concerned:

if the mt is text/html, it is HTML5
if it is application/xhtml+xml:
   if the DTD is one of the many DTD-s defined for XHTML1 at W3C, it is XHTML1+RDFa
   otherwise it is XHTML5+RDFa

Ivan
   

---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



On 25 Apr 2012, at 23:50, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>> 
>> The thing is that @rel remains a valid RDFa 1.1 property (not RDFa 1.1 Lite conformant, but a conforming processor MUST process @rel). Adding a rule, specifically for HTML+RDFa 1.1 (which includes both HTML5 and XHTML5), that removes these "junk" link relations from consideration solves the problem for the typical junk link relation terms.
>> 
> 
> As specified, I fail to see how the current HTML+RDFa 1.1 document
> indicates any handling of documents served with the media type
> application/xhtml+xml.  If all you have is the content-type header and
> the XML (XHTML) document, how exactly do you choose between XHTML+RDFa
> 1.1 and HTML+RDFa 1.1 ?  If that was well-defined and rational to use,
> that would go a long way in making this easier to use.
> 
> 
> -- 
> --Alex Milowski
> "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
> inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
> considered."
> 
> Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
> 
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 04:52:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:20 GMT