Re: Official RDFa Response: ISSUE-104: Determine if RDFa should normatively state that <link> and <meta> elements are supported in flow content.

Jeni,

I do not think we have a disagreement on the goal. However, from a purely procedural point of view: The HTML5+RDFa document is _not_ published by the RDFWA Working Group! The only thing this group can do is to express its support on something that has to be accepted by the HTML5 Working Group.

 Formally, what this would mean is to file an issue with the HTML5 Working Group. I must admit that this may have been my mistake not to do that when I added an issue on this for this group, but I am not 100% sure I am familiar with the HTML 5 WG procedures. Maybe Manu can tell us what the most efficient approach would be. Manu, can this working group file a formal issue, for example?

Yes, it is a procedural mess.

Thanks

Ivan

----
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net



On 10 Sep 2011, at 21:04, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:

> Hi Gregg / RDFWA WG,
> 
> On 9 Sep 2011, at 16:10, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> The group would support a change made by the HTML5 WG to allow the general use of <link> and <meta> within flow content with RDFa attributes.
> 
> Thanks for sending me this response, but I'm afraid I don't find it acceptable.
> 
> You say that you support a change to allow <link> and <meta> within flow content when they have RDFa attributes, but I would have thought the suitable place to make that kind of change is the specification that extends HTML5 to include RDFa. That specification is HTML+RDFa 1.1 [1], and responsibility for it rests with the RDF Web Applications Working Group.
> 
> To make the change, what I'd suggest is that you use wording in HTML+RDFa 1.1 similar to that used within Section 4.1 (Content models) of the current HTML Microdata Editors Draft [2] which states:
> 
>  If the itemprop attribute is present on link or meta, they are flow 
>  content and phrasing content. The link and meta elements may be used 
>  where phrasing content is expected if the itemprop attribute is present.
> 
> This kind of wording might fit nicely within Section 4 (Extensions to the HTML5 Syntax) [3] of the current HTML+RDFa 1.1 Editors Draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jeni
> 
> [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/
> [2]: http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/Overview.html#content-models
> [3]: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#extensions-to-the-html5-syntax
> -- 
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 11 September 2011 04:44:39 UTC