W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2010

RE: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:13:02 -0800
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D4BA29B@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
yes, I was just thinking about "HTML4 documents interpreted through the HTML5 parsing rules" in light of discussions about content-type sniffing, etc., whether the term made sense. The document is intended to conform to the HTML4 specification. "The rules defined in this document" is pretty ambiguous.

These little tweaks about conformance and applicability matter.

The main question is whether this is a general *HTML* extensibility mechanism with RDFa as an example, or if it is really an RDFa extensibility mechanism, could apply to other languages than HTML that might have similar operational behavior, and belongs in the RDFa working group and not in HTML.


-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no] 
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 11:32 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: Manu Sporny; www-archive
Subject: RE: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

Larry Masinter, Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:37:37 -0800:


> It might help to use "this specification" rather than
> "this document" to avoid overloading "document".
> The rules of this specification apply to documents and
> also to processors.

+1   A purely editorial improvement. Although "this document" is 
described as "this specification" in the previous sentence.

> * They apply to documents meeting the requirements
>   of HTML4, HTML5 and XHTML for documents.
> * They apply to processors meeting the requirements
>   of HTML5 for parsing rules.
> Do I have that right? 

I think the Abstract section of the draft first has a sentence about 
where its /syntax/ is valid: "in the HTML5 and XHTML5 members of the 
HTML family". Then it talks about where the /interpretation/ (aka 
parsing rules) will apply. So in a way it has this already. Except for 
the detail that I took up below, and which Manu has already agreed to.

> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Leif Halvard Silli
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:41 PM
> Manu Sporny, Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:53:58 -0500:
>> Feedback on the current draft would be appreciated:
>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/rdfa.html
> In another thread I commented the following part of HTML+RDFa:
> ]]The rules defined in this document not only apply to HTML5 documents 
> in non-XML and XML mode, but also to HTML4 documents interpreted 
> through the HTML5 parsing rules.[[
> My question/suggestion: Shouldn't that sentence also say that HTML+RDFa 
> not only applies to HTML4 but also to XHTML documents when "interpreted 
> through the HTML5 parsing rules"?
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 22:13:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:45 UTC