- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 09:58:44 +0000
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- CC: Fred Marka <fredmarka@hotmail.com>, www-validator@w3.org
Benjamin :
> The processing of RDFa metadata like this is not standardized in text/html.
>
> The RDFa WG and HTML WG are drafting an extension to HTML 4.01 standard
> and to the draft of HTML5, called HTML+RDFa, in which RDFa such as this
> metadata would be conforming.
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/
I know nothing about RDFa, but looking at the example given :
>> <meta property="fb:admins" content="727013482" />
it looks as if this could very easily have been expressed
using the existing syntax of HTML 4.01. The currently permitted
attributes are
name = name [CS]
This attribute identifies a property name. This specification does not list legal values for this attribute.
content = cdata [CS]
This attribute specifies a property's value. This specification does not list legal values for this attribute.
scheme = cdata [CS]
This attribute names a scheme to be used to interpret the property's value (see the section on profiles for details).
http-equiv = name [CI]
This attribute may be used in place of the name attribute. HTTP servers use this attribute to gather information for HTTP response message headers.
so I wonder why (and wonder if you know why) RDFa did not
choose to express the above construct as (say)
<meta scheme="fb" name="admins" content="727013482">
Are you in a position to be able to explain why RDFa chose to
require a non-conformant syntax ?
Philip Taylor
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2011 09:59:24 UTC