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-LewisReceived on Sunday, 9 January 2011 10:26:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:59:20 UTC