- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:55:46 -0400
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Spec Prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
On 17 Aug 2010, at 10:50 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: > Actually, the validator DOES accept the HTML+RDFa version. Its just > pubrules that does not. Shane, Could you tell me what text in pubrules would need changing and to what? Thanks for the help, _ Ian > > 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 > > > > -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 14:55:50 UTC