- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:02:35 -0500
- To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On 01/31/2013 07:05 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > To be honest, I am not sure how to solve these issues, and I would > welcome your suggestions. We face two problems here. Sorry, Ivan - I'm going to have to disagree with you here. We had months and months of discussion about this between the HTML WG and WHAT WG. The HTML5 spec is crystal clear: There is NO versioning mechanism for HTML5 and XHTML5. We're not changing that. Full stop. :) We tried to and there were multiple Formal Objection threats over introducing any sort of versioning in HTML5+RDFa or XHTML5+RDFa. We didn't like this, which is why we said that if an RDFa Processor sees @version, it MUST process it. So, Olaf can use the XHTML1+RDFa 1.1 DOCTYPE now and his document will continue to be processed as such. If he wants to use XTHML5+RDFa 1.1, then he can use @version (which won't validate). There will most likely never be an XHTML6 or HTML6 that is versioned, we may fall back to @version if it does become versioned. The reason HTML5 doesn't have a versioning mechanism is because the browser vendors tried for years to use the versions that people put in their documents and found out that authors get the DOCTYPE declaration wrong more times than they get it right. So, now DOCTYPE declarations are mostly meaningless on the Web because novices didn't get it right. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 15:03:02 UTC