- 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