This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 8979 - Please reconsider should-level requirement for version attribute
Summary: Please reconsider should-level requirement for version attribute
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LC1 HTML+RDFa (editor: Manu Sporny) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Manu Sporny
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#documen...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-02-14 06:38 UTC by Maciej Stachowiak
Modified: 2011-08-04 05:06 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Maciej Stachowiak 2010-02-14 06:38:36 UTC 
Section 3.1 Document Conformance says:

"There should be a version attribute on the html element. The value of the version attribute should be "HTML+RDFa 1.0" if the document is a non-XML mode document, or "XHTML+RDFa 1.0" if the document is a XML mode document."

This definition of the version attribute prevents @version from ever being defined by HTML itself as a language versioning mechanism. I think it is inappropriate for an extension to steal such generic and useful names. I would suggest instead that that RDFa should use an "rdfa-version" attribute, or register a meta keyword to indicate RDFa version.
Comment 1 Manu Sporny 2010-02-16 04:23:18 UTC 
RDFA-SPEC-SECTIONS [document-conformance]
Comment 2 Manu Sporny 2010-05-03 01:36:36 UTC 
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected

Change Description: 

No change necessary.

Rationale:

There is nothing about the definition of the @version attribute that would preclude HTML6 from defining a compatible version of the attribute in the future. WHAT WG and HTML WG seem to have asserted that they are not interested in pursuing "document versioning" in the past - has this changed? Furthermore, @version is already defined and is in active use for XHTML+RDFa 1.0 - it already exists and is being used, so removing it from HTML+RDFa does nothing to change the state of published documents on the web that may be interpreted using HTML5. 

If the HTML WG would like to specify the @version attribute format, then it should do so in HTML5.
Comment 3 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-04 05:06:03 UTC 
mass-move component to LC1