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

Re: Removing XHTML saving from ReSpec?

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:40:48 +0100
Message-ID: <512B77F0.4090903@w3.org>
To: shane@aptest.com
CC: "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 25/02/2013 15:35 , Shane McCarron wrote:
> Currently there are only a few grammars that are permitted in a W3C
> Recommendation.  NONE of the permitted grammars are HTML5.

Actually that's not true. HTML5 is permitted and has been for a while. 
That's why ReSpec produces HTML5!

> 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.

We can use HTML5 and it's not a Rec. Is there any reason why we couldn't 
use HTML5 + RDFa too? Is it unstable? I thought we had something 
reliable at this stage. Are people really expected to deploy RDFa in 
XHTML? That doesn't seem viable (and surprises me a good deal!).

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 14:41:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 February 2013 14:41:01 GMT