- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:26:22 +0100
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:10:16 -0400 Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote: > Your comment was that RDFa should allow for the use of <link> and > <meta> elements in flow content, as Microdata specifically supports. While the Microdata spec does show a <meta> element in flow content as an example, in practice for text/html this simply doesn't work. http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/tree-construction.html#parsing-main-inbody | A start tag token whose tag name is one of: "base", "basefont", | "bgsound", "command", "link", "meta", "noframes", "script", "style", | "title" | | Process the token using the rules for the "in head" insertion | mode. In other words, when building the DOM, all <meta> and <link> elements are placed as children of the <head> element, no matter where they occur in the original stream. This has been done by browsers for at least a decade, so any change could create substantial backwards compatibility problems. For example, a client-side Microdata or RDFa implementation that expected to be able to find <meta> and <link> elements in flow content would not find them in the DOM of any legacy browsers. (And for "any legacy" read "any".) Of course in application/xhtml+xml, DOM construction is as per XML, so elements stay where you expect them to be. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 07:25:53 UTC