W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:16:37 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-id: <2E973497-603D-484C-AB64-882B25E8ABE1@apple.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>

On Jul 30, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak On 09-07-31 01.35:
>> Here's an interesting side note: HTML5 actually has a hook for open- 
>> ended extension by other specs. <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#semantics-0 
>> > "Authors must not use elements, attributes, and attribute values  
>> that are not permitted by this specification or *other applicable  
>> specifications*." [emphasis mine]
>> While less formal than the XHTML Modularization mechanism, it seems  
>> to allow a specification external to HTML5 could define RDFa  
>> additions without also having to copy the full text of HTML5.  
>> Validators could then choose to support profiles that do or don't  
>> support RDFa, based on market demand. I think a draft that just  
>> defined the RDFa additions would engender less potential  
>> controversy than a full alternative draft of all of HTML5.
> I suppose "applicable" is the keyword there. HTML 5 defers the  
> values of the media attribute to the CSS Media Query specification.  
> That to me makes an example of what is meant w.r.t. to "attribute  
> value".

That seems like a plausible reading, but it doesn't seem like it would  
apply to attributes or elements, only attribute values.

> Or perhaps it is meant specs of the microformats kind - narrowing  
> sub-specifications so to say?

I don't think that was the intent. I think the intent was that another  
spec could allow something that's not allowed by HTML5, and HTML5  
doesn't declare that combination invalid.

> I would not have guessed on the interpretation you give here. But it  
> would be interesting if it were as you say ...  I wonder how one  
> would decide the profile.

For what it's worth, I asked Hixie about it and he seemed to agree  
with my interpretation. I think authors (and validators) could decide  
what other specs they think are applicable.

Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 01:17:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:03 UTC