W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2010

[Bug 8979] New: Please reconsider should-level requirement for version attribute

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:38:36 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-8979-2486@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:11 UTC