- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:25:40 +0000
- To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
- Cc: Fred Marka <fredmarka@hotmail.com>, www-validator@w3.org
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > Are you in a position to be able to explain why RDFa chose to > require a non-conformant syntax ? HTML 4.01 conformance was not a goal for RDFa. Indeed, the original conformance target seems to have been XHTML2. RDFa needed a way to specify the property designated by arbitrary elements. Overloading @name would not have been realistic, since @name already has different meanings on different elements (e.g. as a fragment identifier, as a form submission key). See also the original note proposing RDFa: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/02/xhtml-rdf.html -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2011 10:26:15 UTC