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

Re: [HTML+RDFa 1.1] section 3.1 and 2.1

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:02:35 -0500
Message-ID: <510A878B.2090702@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On 01/31/2013 07:05 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> To be honest, I am not sure how to solve these issues, and I would 
> welcome your suggestions. We face two problems here.

Sorry, Ivan - I'm going to have to disagree with you here. We had months
and months of discussion about this between the HTML WG and WHAT WG. The
HTML5 spec is crystal clear: There is NO versioning mechanism for HTML5
and XHTML5. We're not changing that. Full stop. :)

We tried to and there were multiple Formal Objection threats over
introducing any sort of versioning in HTML5+RDFa or XHTML5+RDFa.

We didn't like this, which is why we said that if an RDFa Processor sees
@version, it MUST process it. So, Olaf can use the XHTML1+RDFa 1.1
DOCTYPE now and his document will continue to be processed as such. If
he wants to use XTHML5+RDFa 1.1, then he can use @version (which won't
validate). There will most likely never be an XHTML6 or HTML6 that is
versioned, we may fall back to @version if it does become versioned.

The reason HTML5 doesn't have a versioning mechanism is because the
browser vendors tried for years to use the versions that people put in
their documents and found out that authors get the DOCTYPE declaration
wrong more times than they get it right. So, now DOCTYPE declarations
are mostly meaningless on the Web because novices didn't get it right.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals
http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 15:03:02 UTC

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