Re: RDFa in ReSpec

  Sure.  pubrules only permits certain markup languages to be used in 
W3C rec track documents.  These include XHTML 1.0, HTML 4.01, and 
XHTML+RDFa 1.0.  There is no W3C recommendation that defines HTML+RDFa 
currently.  There is a rec-track document that is not yet in last call 
that defines such a language (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/) but it 
is based upon RDFa Core 1.1, which has also not yet entered last call.  
Consequently, such a language is probably too immature for use in a rec 
track document.

If you REALLY wanted to permit the use of HTML4+RDFa 1.0 in spite of it 
not being defined in a W3C recommendation, we DO have a DTD for this, 
and ReSpec.js has been modified to generate documents that validate 
against that DTD.  I just assumed this would be unlikely.

On 8/17/2010 9:55 AM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>
> 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
>

-- 
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 15:01:17 UTC