W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: RDFa and MicroFormats

From: Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:10:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOk_reF1XXktHHRhSN0Vd=9=_L0TK73D6cz98tv9mc4ewf4baQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
The validator accepts RDFa as far as I know.  Honestly I had not tested
with HTML5 yet.  I will do that soon.  I was still getting the tests to
exercise all the various combinations of RDF.

As to being able to turn it off...  I appreciate your desire to have it on
all the time and not provide a mechanism to disable it, but I don't want to
piss anyone off.   Easy enough to make it mandatory at some point in the
future.


On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:

> On 03/07/2013 17:35 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>> I note that somewhere along the line ReSpec was modified to generate
>> microformat compatible classes for things like authors.  That's fine,
>> and it is not *inconsistent* with RDFa.
>>
>
> It was definitely not meant to be :)
>
>
>  However, the way it is written
>> you get one or the other.
>>
>
> That's just an artefact of us being banned from shipping RDFa by default
> because the validator rejected HTML+RDFa. If it were up to me, we'd always
> ship microformats, and RDFa, and microdata.
>
>
>  If you disable RDFa you STILL get microformats (since that is the
>> default right now).
>>
>
> I think the validator accepts RDFa now, right? If so, I don't see the
> point in having a way to disable it. ReSpec has the metadata, it should be
> produced for all sorts of consumers without getting into politics.
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>



-- 
Shane P. McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 16:10:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:18 UTC