W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2008

Re: RDFa test case #1 missing @profile?

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:01:34 -0500
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m2bq5vv54x.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> was heard to say:
| Just a little more data here.  Every XHTML family markup language,
| including XHTML+RDFa, has a version attribute on the html element.
| This attribute has a predefined, FIXED value for each language.  If
| what you are concerned about is announcement, and I know that I am, a
| great way to announce your intention would be:
|
| <html version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0" ... >

Yes, I suppose that's sufficient. I get the impression that no attempt
to persuade the working group to add a statement along the lines
"In order to be interpreted as RDFa, a document MUST have {some explicit
marker}", no matter how passionate, would succeed.

You may record that the submitter is satisfied, at least for the
moment, albeit very reluctantly, with rejection of his request for a
change. And that he's taken an "I told you so" chip which he may play
later.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If today was a fish, I'd throw it back
http://nwalsh.com/            | in.

Received on Monday, 3 March 2008 22:01:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:55 UTC