- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:51:55 +0200
- To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
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 UTC