W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: RDFa in ReSpec

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:50:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4C6AA1BD.6020608@aptest.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Spec Prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
  Actually, the validator DOES accept the HTML+RDFa version.  Its just 
pubrules that does not.

I will think about whether there is way to have a mode that means 'add 
RDFa at the end'.  But frankly, I think that would be pretty tricky.

On 8/17/2010 9:45 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2010, at 16:26 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>> No objection from me.  Note that in order to be valid for W3C publication use you would need to make the default XHTML+RDFa.  I also added XHTML generation, and it seems to work very well.  We even published a spec the other day using it (RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1).
> Ah, that's problematic because we don't know at DOM generation time whether the user will want to save as HTML or XHTML, and I really don't want to suddenly break things for people who prefer to use HTML.
>
> Do you think that your implementation could be made to work as a post-processor so that saving to HTML would do nothing, but saving to XHTML would include the RDFa (unless disabled)? It might be too hackish though.
>
> One alternative could be to get the validator to accept it, though I suspect that might take some time :)
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 14:51:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:17 GMT