Re: ISSUE-137 (Media Type): HTML+RDFa should normatively declare media types and describe how to identify relative to XHTML+RDFa 1.1 [RDFa 1.1 in HTML5]

On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Alex Milowski wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Alex Milowski <> wrote:
>> I doubt there is a reliable way to tell them apart.
> ...or, I'm wrong and we do explicitly what the HTML+RDFa 1.1
> specification says and if there is a version attribute with the value
> "XHTML+RDFa 1.1", we use the that instead.  By default, you'd process
> with the HTML+RDFa 1.1 rules.  That means all documents served as
> application/xhtml+xml that conform to the HTML5 specification (e.g. no
> version attribute) would be processed according to the HTML+RDFa 1.1
> rules.

Sadly, the @version attribute has been removed from HTML5.

A processor is considered conforming if it passes the test suites for the host languages for which it claims to process. In the case of my processor, I process it as XHTML1 if and only if I see a DOCTYPE and/or version that indicates it's XHTML1. I err on the side of HTML5 or XHTML5 if it is ambiguous.

Basically, if I see text/html, I use HTML+RDFa. If I see application/xhtml+xml, I use XHTML+RDFa if I see "xhtml" in DOCTYPE. Otherwise, I use HTML+RDFa.


> -- 
> --Alex Milowski
> "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
> inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
> considered."
> Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics

Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 00:49:29 UTC