Re: Tiny issue on HTML5+RDFa vs. RDFa Lite

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Manu,
>
> - I should have said upfront: I think we have exactly the same situation
> with @value in the same section. Ie, I believe both should be allowed in
> RDFa+HTML5 Lite
>

I think you meant @content here.


> - We should call out explicitly to this fact in 3.1
>

yes, "it may also use href, src, datetime, content, when the Host Language
authorizes the usage of those attributes."


> - Because these are valid HTML5 attributes, I would expect this does not
> affect Mike's validator...
>

yes, as long as they are used in the right context/element wrt to the HTML5
validator. @content is allowed in the meta element but not anywhere else in
pure HTML5. that's probably why it was left out of RDFa Lite. But
nonetheless, it could be mentioned in 3.1, as the meta use case is still
relevant.

Steph.


>
> Thanks!
>
> Ivan
>
> On Nov 8, 2012, at 23:01 , Manu Sporny wrote:
>
> > On 11/08/2012 01:58 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> >>> Section 3.1 in the HTML5+RDFa calls out for the @datatime
> >>> attribute. Is this attribute allowed in RDFa Lite?
> >>
> >> Well, it's an HTML5 attribute, that is interpreted by RDFa 1.1, so I
> >> would definitely say that it is allowed.
> >
> > Yes, I think this is clear... @datetime is the same as @href and @src
> > wrt. how RDFa Lite 1.1 talks about it (in that it doesn't need to talk
> > about it because it's a part of the host language).
> >
> > I don't think we need an issue for it. If anybody disagrees, please
> > speak up.
> >
> > -- manu
> >
> > --
> > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> > blog: The Problem with RDF and Nuclear Power
> > http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/
> >
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Steph.