- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:40:48 +0100
- To: shane@aptest.com
- CC: "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 25/02/2013 15:35 , Shane McCarron wrote: > Currently there are only a few grammars that are permitted in a W3C > Recommendation. NONE of the permitted grammars are HTML5. Actually that's not true. HTML5 is permitted and has been for a while. That's why ReSpec produces HTML5! > RDFa is critical for some of the things that the community is starting > to do with the specifications in the wild. RDFa is ONLY currently > defined for XHTML. There is a document in progress that defines it in > terms of HTML, but that will not be a Recommendation for some time. > Even when it is, it will not really have a definition in the context > of HTML4 (because we are not permitted to extend HTML4). So until > HTML5 is a Recommendation, and until it is permitted for use in W3C > recommendations, we need to support XHTML+RDFa in order to use RDFa in > W3C Recommendations. We can use HTML5 and it's not a Rec. Is there any reason why we couldn't use HTML5 + RDFa too? Is it unstable? I thought we had something reliable at this stage. Are people really expected to deploy RDFa in XHTML? That doesn't seem viable (and surprises me a good deal!). -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 14:41:01 UTC