- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:36:45 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14114 --- Comment #4 from Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> 2011-12-30 17:36:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > The separation of microdata from HTML is an artificial editorial conceit for > the W3C specification. As far as I'm concerned, the conformance clauses > regarding <link> and <meta> as flow content are already in the HTML standard. In the WHAT WG version, yes - but only when they contain Microdata attributes. In the W3C version, no. We're discussing the W3C version of the spec. > However, even in this view, <link> and <meta> aren't just allowed in flow > content, they are only allowed in flow content if they are being used for > microdata. There are two approaches that we could take to resolve this issue. 1) The HTML5 specification could say that <meta> and <link> are allowed in flow content when expressing invisible metadata. The major down-side I see in this approach is that it makes <meta> and <link> not really that different from <span>, other than making them slightly more accurate semantic tags. 2) The HTML+RDFa spec could say that <meta> and <link> are allowed in flow/phrasing content as long as they contain certain RDFa attributes. This mirrors what the split-out W3C Microdata specification says and is probably the more acceptable path forward, from Ian's perspective. I'm going to implement #2, understanding that we may have another issue raised at 2nd LC noting that the W3C Microdata and HTML+RDFa specs effectively state the same thing and that we may want to make the text more generalized and do #1, instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://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 Friday, 30 December 2011 17:36:46 UTC