W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2013

[HTML+RDFa 1.1] section 3.1 and 2.1

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:54:23 +0100
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <201301311154.23995.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Hello, 

the working draft
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-rdfa-in-html-20121213/
as well as this variant from today 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-in-html/
contain in section 3.1 the sentence:
"Documents served as application/xhtml+xml, that don't contain a DTD, and 
don't specify a @version attribute must be interpreted as XHTML5+RDFa 1.1 
documents."

Does this mean, that if for example in 20 years I write an XHTML6+RDFa 2.0
document, there will be a DTD or version indication again to ensure, that
the document will be interpreted as XHTML6+RDFa 2.0 and not as
XHTML5+RDFa 1.1?

How to indicate precisely, that a document is of version XHTML5+RDFa 1.1,
because section 2.1 only notes:
"XML mode XHTML5+RDFa 1.1 documents should be labeled with the Internet Media 
Type application/xhtml+xml as defined in section 12.3 of the HTML5 
specification [HTML5], must not use a DOCTYPE declaration for XHTML+RDFa 1.0 
or XHTML+RDFa 1.1, and should not use the @version attribute."

This does not implicate, how to indicate an XHTML5+RDFa 1.1 at all.
Doesn't this finally mean, that one effectively cannot write an 
XHTML5+RDFa 1.1 document at all, because one cannot indicate, that
the document follows this version?

Or should one indicate the relation for example with a DCMI Term
(http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/)
like conformsTo or  format with the URI of the specification as value?
Is this the currently preferred approach for all types of (X)HTML5-documents,
because they currently have no version indication itself?
Or is there a simpler method without the need of other formats to
indicate, that one has an (X)HTML5 document and not something else?


Olaf
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 11:05:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:58 UTC