- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:50:37 -0500
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: Spec Prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Actually, the validator DOES accept the HTML+RDFa version. Its just pubrules that does not. I will think about whether there is way to have a mode that means 'add RDFa at the end'. But frankly, I think that would be pretty tricky. On 8/17/2010 9:45 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > On Aug 17, 2010, at 16:26 , Shane McCarron wrote: >> No objection from me. Note that in order to be valid for W3C publication use you would need to make the default XHTML+RDFa. I also added XHTML generation, and it seems to work very well. We even published a spec the other day using it (RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1). > Ah, that's problematic because we don't know at DOM generation time whether the user will want to save as HTML or XHTML, and I really don't want to suddenly break things for people who prefer to use HTML. > > Do you think that your implementation could be made to work as a post-processor so that saving to HTML would do nothing, but saving to XHTML would include the RDFa (unless disabled)? It might be too hackish though. > > One alternative could be to get the validator to accept it, though I suspect that might take some time :) > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 14:51:16 UTC