- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:38:36 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8979 Summary: Please reconsider should-level requirement for version attribute Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: PC URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#document-conformance OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: HTML+RDFa (editor: Manu Sporny) AssignedTo: msporny@digitalbazaar.com ReportedBy: mjs@apple.com QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, msporny@digitalbazaar.com Section 3.1 Document Conformance says: "There should be a version attribute on the html element. The value of the version attribute should be "HTML+RDFa 1.0" if the document is a non-XML mode document, or "XHTML+RDFa 1.0" if the document is a XML mode document." This definition of the version attribute prevents @version from ever being defined by HTML itself as a language versioning mechanism. I think it is inappropriate for an extension to steal such generic and useful names. I would suggest instead that that RDFa should use an "rdfa-version" attribute, or register a meta keyword to indicate RDFa version. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 06:38:38 UTC