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

Re: RDFa in ReSpec

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:29:45 -0400
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Spec Prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1555DAAE-7FC5-4B76-B566-3FE0F880E277@kellogg-assoc.com>
In ReSpec2, HTML generation should probably also depend on if unhtml5 is used. It's perfectly reasonable (outside of pubrules, I suppose) to not do the unhtml5 step, in which case there is no XHTML+RDFa profile anyway. In the context of generating HTML4, then it's probably easier to invoke the RDFa steps when the file's being saved, but that makes it more difficult to debug when developing. It's probably better to strip the RDFa markup when saving HTML or XHTML.

Gregg

On Aug 17, 2010, at 7:45 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 :)
> 
> -- 
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 16:31:52 GMT

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