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

Re: ISSUE-41: Facebook open graph protocol

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:02:58 +0200
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100422220258694252.bb377594@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Philippe Le Hegaret, Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:28:20 -0400:
> Facebook announced yesterday support for the open graph protocol [1].
> [...] Their system is based on RDFa, and thus using xmlns attributes:
> [...] [1] http://developers.facebook.com/docs/opengraph

The DOCTYPE of the page you linked to says <!DOCTYPE html>. Also, a 
quick search for "test open graph facebook" revealed a page which also 
used <!DOCTYPE html> as one of the top findings. [1]

> They're using XHTML 1.0 with the media type text/html. I don't think
> they're going to switch to application/xhtml+xml soon.
> Effectively, from a technical perspective, it's a great news for the
> RDFa community. But, from the point of HTML, Facebook and their partners
> are deploying xmlns attributes in HTML all over the Web, independently
> of what the HTML5 specification is currently saying. So, that makes me
> wonder how relevant the HTML5 resolution on ISSUE-41 is going to be,

It also makes me think about 

- why XHTML11 should not be permitted served as text/html?
- why RDFa Core 1.1 deprecates the xmlns:foo="*" syntax? [2]

Anyhow, as long as they use <!DOCTYPE html>, then this working group's 
HTML+RDFa specification draft already allows xmlns:foo="*" ... Not only 
that: Validator.nu allows you to validate XHTML1 pages as if they were 
HTML5 pages ...

So, thanks to the input from both WHATwg and the RDFa community, I 
cannot see that they are very far fetched or out of tune with this 
group in what they are doing.

[1] http://www.jamesbalean.com.au/facebook/
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 20:03:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC