From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


This document outlines the state of the HTML+RDFa 1.1 Last Call and Implementations. The purpose of the document is to help those making the decision on whether or not to allow HTML+RDFa 1.1 to transition directly from Last Call to Proposed Recommendation.

Decision to Advance to PR

RESOLVED: Publish the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification as a Proposed Recommendation, skipping the Candidate Recommendation phase due to multiple interoperable implementations, targetting a publication date of June 25th 2013.

Changes since Last Call

  • Editorial - Fixed Turtle output in Example #1
  • Non-substantive Technical Change - Narrowed LINK and META allow-ability in the body of HTML5 documents to enable W3C Validator to catch more potential authoring errors.
  • Editorial - Changed description of @datetime processing to be easier to understand for implementers.
  • Non-substantive Normative Change - Noted that TIME/@datetime and rdf:HTML features are non-normative features from non-REC documents and that once those features are published in REC documents that a Proposed Edited Recommendation will be published for HTML+RDFa 1.1 making the features normative.
  • Editorial - warning that language retrieved from HTTP Headers may not be available in JavaScript DOM environments.

Changes to WG Requirements for HTML+RDFa 1.1



  • HTML5 - HTML+RDFa 1.1 uses the TIME element and @datetime attribute. We have received assurance that the feature is stable.
  • RDF Concepts - HTML+RDFa 1.1 uses the rdf:HTML vocabulary term. The RDF WG does not plan to remove the feature (barring any last minute formal objections by WG participants, none are expected)
  • W3C Validator - We have made a change to reduce the possibility of authoring error with a minor feature of HTML+RDFa 1.1. Mike Smith seems to be happy with the change.

For the rdf:HTML and @datetime features, a W3C approach (established with the OWL specifications) has been taken. This approach is detailed in the Status of the Document section as a Note.

Evidence of wide review

The HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification was published as a FPWD in the HTML Working Group, co-developed by HTML WG and RDFa Web Apps WG, and then moved over to RDFa WG for publication through to REC. The specification itself has been in development since 2009 and has undergone multiple full reviews by at least the following people:

  • Maciej Stachowiak (Apple, HTML WG)
  • Henri Sivonen (Mozilla, HTML WG)
  • Philip Taylor (HTML WG)
  • Leif Halvard Sili (HTML WG)
  • Stefan Schumacher (W3C German Translation of RDFa documents)
  • Stephane Corlosquet (RDFa WG, Drupal developer)
  • Ivan Herman (RDFa WG, PyRDFa developer)
  • Gregg Kellogg (RDFa WG, Ruby RDFa processor)
  • Alex Milowski (Green Turtle Javascript RDFa processor)
  • Niklas Lindstrom (RDFa WG, Clojure RDFa processor)

A list of all issues tracked by the HTML WG and RDFa WG are available (all issues have been resolved and have an official editor's or WG response):

Evidence of Interoperability

There are currently four fully conforming RDFa 1.1 implementations. A few other implementations are nearing full compliance with implementers (Niklas Lindstrom and Manu Sporny) commenting that they plan full 100% compatability when time allows them to make the updates for HTML5+RDFa 1.1.

Formal Responses to Last Call Issues

The only Last Call comment was an editorial change requested by Stefan Schumacher which was applied to the specification.

There were a few editorial comments that were submitted after the Last Call period was over, and those changes (related to an HTML document language processing corner-case) has been applied to the specification as well.

Formal Objections

The only formal objection to the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification was made by Tab Atkins Jr. arguing that the use of prefixes are too complicated for a Web technology. The RDFa WG made changes based on his feedback. Tab did not respond to the changes made (3 requests for feedback from Tab was made over the course of several months with no response from Tab). The RDFa WG does not believe the changes made would be enough to address the commenters request (that prefixes should be removed entirely or hard-coded).

  • Prefixes too complicated for a Web technology - The RDFa WG made changes to the specification based on the Formal Objection and requested a response on three different occasions across multiple months. No response was received by the submitter.

Requirement Fulfillment

All requirements regarding the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification of the RDFa Working Group have been fulfilled.