- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 23:11:01 +0000
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:28:09 +0000 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > Checking through http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/, I don't see > describedby (any capitalisation) in any section. But there is a > definition of meta. I /think/ this is the only definition of this > term, despite it having been in common use for a long time? rel="meta" is defined in the drafts of XHTML2. XHTML2's keywords fed into the RDFa work, so it's subsequently defined in the XHTML+RDFa 1.0 Rec. XHTML+RDFa 1.1 and HTML+RDFa will define it indirectly via the XHTML vocabulary. It's also the method of linking to RDF from HTML which has been recommended by the FOAF project for ages. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:11:24 UTC