- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:17:15 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, "XHTML WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:12:21 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Does that mean there's no way to change it, and HTML5 needs to either > adopt it or use a different notation? Well, it is certainly too late to change, since it has gone through the process, and it now being implemented and adopted. >> Well, RDFa is being implemented as we speak too. At least RDFa followed >> process and made sure that we had agreement on features before >> implementing them. Ignoring W3C process and then saying "it's >> implemented already, we can't change it now" is a guaranteed way to >> create this sort of problem. >> ... > > I'm not going to defend the way the HTML WG does its work, as I happen > to agree with this one. The issue is that that point of view doesn't > help fixing the problem. I just meant that the organised coordination channels are the way to do it, the more so since other markups are adopting RDFa, and will be party to the discussion. >>> Which is great. I think that getting RDFa to work well in HTML4 is >>> very important; I'm personally looking forward to get HTML4 documents >>> including RDFa to successfully validate (even if I need to provide a >>> different doctype). >> In the meantime you can use the XHTML+RDFa doctype to get it to >> validate. > > Understood, but not really helpful. > > I personally like XHTML and use it everywhere where compatibility with > IE is a non-issue (such as an intermediate format, or when I really > don't care about IE users). But in the real world, people are stuck with > HTML, and thus it would be good to have a convincing RDFa-in-HTML story. > That would also help driving the HTML5 discussion. Actually I never have any problems getting XHTML into IE to speak of, and don't really understand the fuss. Even using application/xhtml+xml works (see http://www.w3.org/International/tests/sec-ruby-markup-1.html as an example). I know that there are some differences, but in the vast majority of deployed pages, with a little forethought you're never going to have any major issues. Best wishes, Steven Pemberton
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 11:18:06 UTC