W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Removing XHTML saving from ReSpec?

From: Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:35:14 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOk_reEgTuODVG4z6H_yjDT5VL3=aTQsK8YF6ofSUsNLMOHe9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Currently there are only a few grammars that are permitted in a W3C
Recommendation.  NONE of the permitted grammars are HTML5.  One of
them is XHTML+RDFa.  Another is HTML4(.01).  Another is XHTML 1.0.
So we need to continue to support at least one of these.

RDFa is critical for some of the things that the community is starting
to do with the specifications in the wild.  RDFa is ONLY currently
defined for XHTML.  There is a document in progress that defines it in
terms of HTML, but that will not be a Recommendation for some time.
Even when it is, it will not really have a definition in the context
of HTML4 (because we are not permitted to extend HTML4).  So until
HTML5 is a Recommendation, and until it is permitted for use in W3C
recommendations, we need to support XHTML+RDFa in order to use RDFa in
W3C Recommendations.  Since we are using ReSpec as the core of the
toolchain for documentation production, that means we need to continue
to support XHTML+RDFa as a serialization in ReSpec.  At least that is
what it means to me.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:
> On 22/02/2013 14:40 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>>
>> I would scream.  We use the XHTML format for formal W3C publications
>> (and XHTML+RDFa).  If there are errors in the output, I am happy to fix
>> them. Can you elaborage on the errors?
>
>
> Well the most common source of confusion is people writing in to say that
> they don't understand why the validator is rejecting their <section>
> elements, or conversely why ReSpec isn't removing them. The same applies to
> all other HTML5 constructs.
>
> Normally, removing the XHTML parts of the DOCTYPE might be enough to get
> past the validator. But how that interacts with RDFa validation, I do not
> know.
>
> Are you using XHTML just to get RDFa? What is preventing you from just using
> RDFa in HTML? The specs eventually always get served as text/html anyway.
>
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon



-- 
Shane P. McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 14:35:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 February 2013 14:35:47 GMT