- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:27:49 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:35:07 -0400 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > We have a couple of options in front of us, that could be combined: > > 1. Keep everything as it is right now, ignoring the polyglot > ramifications of the decision. > 2. Harmonize the HTML5+RDFa and XHTML5+RDFa @version strings. > 3. Specify that @version SHOULD NOT be used unless an author > would like to force the RDFa Processor into a particular mode. We could say that @version is a plus-separated list of features in use, and that RDFa processors can split it on the '+', and only need to concern themselves with the feature that matches the regular expression /RDFa(\s.+)?/i If the 'HTML' and 'XHTML' features are respectively defined as 'can be parsed as HTML' and 'can be parsed as XHTML', then a polyglot document could legitimately use any of: HTML+RDFa 1.1 RDFa 1.1+HTML (order is not important) XHTML+RDFa 1.1 XHTML+HTML+RDFa 1.1 RDFa 1.1 One can even imagine people aiming to build polyglot RDFa 1.0 and RDFa 1.1 documents - i.e. documents that yield the same graph parsed as either version of RDFa: XHTML+RDFa 1.0+RDFa 1.1 This interpretation of the @version attribute should be compatible with the XHTML+RDFa 1.0 Rec. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 07:28:56 UTC