Re: RDFa and MicroFormats

I send the pull request...  I hope I didn't mess it up.


On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote:

> 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.
>



-- 
Shane P. McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.