RE: how dirty can the HTML be, and still be RDFa?

Thanks.  my question is really simple: is http://yorkporc.blogspot.com/2011/11/bob.html#me a valid webid profile?  I though the WHOLE point of our adoption RDFa was that a fragment of suitably marked up div (cut and pasted, per a previous poster) could be inserted in any old (dirty) XHTML, tagged with the correct doctype? It was rather ambiguous whether the doctype was even really required, though. This property was supposed to differentiate it from the previous approaches, produced by machines in some serialization format produced in an endpoint - little different to any other for the last 30 years.  if it is, following up the usual insults from our W3C chair, ill make a blog post with my own certs/keys - rather than use the values from the spec.  (I just used the spec values so there was nothing to object to ...in raw conformance terms ... while I found a publishing platform that works and could be tested against the test suite and the 14 other implementations, as they adopt the new spec over the next month)      > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:49:06 +0100
> From: danbri@danbri.org
> To: home_pw@msn.com
> CC: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Subject: Re: how dirty can the HTML be, and still be RDFa?
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Re dirty HTML, this is a very real issue. HTML documents are usually
> pretty crappy, standards-wise.
> 
> I'd suggest looking into HTML5's approach. They have a much more
> liberal parsing regime than XML (this was one of the major drivers for
> the original WHATWG/XHTML fork).
> 
> So http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html#parsing and nearby define
> ways of turning ugly worldy documents into a parsed structure. There's
> a parser at http://code.google.com/p/html5lib/ or
> http://about.validator.nu/htmlparser/
> 
> See also http://ejohn.org/blog/html-5-parsing/
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
>