Re: [HTML+RDFa 1.1] section 3.1 and 2.1

On Jan 31, 2013, at 16:02 , Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 


There is no disagreement here. This is what I tried to convey but I was not successful...

Ivan

> -- 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/
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf