- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:09:26 +0100
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- CC: "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 25/02/2013 12:43 , Karl Dubost wrote: >> 2) the DOCTYPE is one of the XHTML ones > > Not understanding this one :) > <!DOCTYPE html> will work perfectly with WF XML Yes, but I don't know if it works for the variety of things that people do with this. More specifically, it used to be that we couldn't include RDFa outside of XHTML because it wouldn't validate (and therefore not pass pubrules). If this hasn't changed, I would suspect that the above DOCTYPE is also wrong for this case (since most XHTML validators tend to "dumbly" use a DTD instead of proper validation techniques). >> 3) RDFa somehow seems to depend on this > > which is the goal of "HTML+RDFa 1.1" > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/ *If* this is supported in validation and *if* it matches what people are doing with RDFa in specs. That's an unknown for me. Note that if I implement the above changes we are effectively chucking XHTML out (since XHTML requires specific DOCTYPEs) and replacing it with polyglot HTML5. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 12:09:35 UTC