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 17:47:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOk_reGYj5-w+aTmQeDL7VUwhubpXaFTDFmKK3-UXdo2488DEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>
Cc: "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, shane@aptest.com, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
I don't want to work around rel and about though. I really don't.
On Jul 3, 2013 5:39 PM, "Gregg Kellogg" <gregg@greggkellogg.com> wrote:

>
> Gregg Kellogg
> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>
> On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote:
>
> Yes.  The validation is fine.  However, the default of RDFa Lite 1.1 means
> that these documents will fail unless you select the appropriate dialect.
>  RDFa Lite 1.1 is too limited for the metadata that we are generating.
>
>
> Specifically, we use @list to ensure that authors and editors are retained
> in proper order. Other things could be worked around, but not this ordering.
>
> Gregg
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:10 PM, 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.
>>>
>>
>> From my recent testing, HTML5 + RDFa validates pretty well on
>> http://validator.w3.org/nu/, and the folks on the validator mailing are
>> pretty helpful and responsive when there is a bug.
>>
>> Steph.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steph.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Shane P. McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 22:47:34 UTC

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