- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:48:47 +0000
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- CC: Fred Marka <fredmarka@hotmail.com>, www-validator@w3.org
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > HTML 4.01 conformance was not a goal for RDFa. Indeed, the original > conformance target seems to have been XHTML2. OK, understood. > RDFa needed a way to specify the property designated by arbitrary > elements. Overloading @name would not have been realistic, since @name > already has different meanings on different elements (e.g. as a > fragment identifier, as a form submission key). Oh, I thought that was addressed/solved by the attribute "scheme"; is that not the case ? > See also the original note proposing RDFa: > > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/02/xhtml-rdf.html Now on my reading list. Thank you. Philip Taylor -- Not sent from my i-Pad, i-Phone, Blackberry, Blueberry, or any such similar poseurs' toy, none of which would I be seen dead with even if they came free with every packet of cornflakes.
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2011 10:49:23 UTC