- From: Simone Onofri <simone.onofri@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:24:25 +0200
- To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, "Sergio Fernández" <sergio@wikier.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
On 10/9/07, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Simone, > > you should also quote the reply of Harry (Chair of the GRDDL WG): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Sep/0008.html You're right Ivan, apologies for lost quotation and thanks for posting it. :-( As the focus on (quotation from Harry): [[ The link syntax you suggest is of course equivalent to @profile except in syntax, but the problem is that some software, like GRDDL, already uses the @profile syntax. Given that XHTML 2 is not a recommendation and GRDDL was chartered for compatibility with XHTML 1, we followed the @profile convention in GRDDL, and we would prefer that GRDDL be compatible with XHTML 2. We would prefer if GRDDL and XHTML 2 not be incompatible. ]] We have RDFa as XHTML 1 (with DTD) and as XHTML 2 module. > ie, the GRDDL group would still prefer to keep the profile attribute in > its old format... And his arguments are also valid for RDFa, I believe. Also I hope is the same/similar question. And on GRDDL we preferred to mantain the backwards compatibility :-) this can be right also for RDFa? Cheers, Simone
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2007 08:24:39 UTC