14114 2011-09-12 08:30:09 +0000 HTML+RDFa should extend flow content to include link and meta elements 2013-01-21 04:09:19 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML+RDFa (editor: Manu Sporny) unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 jeni msporny ian jeni mike msporny philipj public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking xn--mlform-iua public-rdfa-wg oldest_to_newest 56656 0 jeni 2011-09-12 08:30:09 +0000 To make it easier to convert microdata to RDFa and vice versa, <link> and <meta> elements should be permitted within flow content and phrasing content when they have RDFa attributes. I'd suggest using wording in HTML+RDFa 1.1 similar to that used within Section 4.1 (Content models) of the current HTML Microdata Editors Draft [2] which states: If the itemprop attribute is present on link or meta, they are flow content and phrasing content. The link and meta elements may be used where phrasing content is expected if the itemprop attribute is present. This kind of wording might fit nicely within Section 4 (Extensions to the HTML5 Syntax) [3] of the current HTML+RDFa 1.1 Editors Draft. The RDFWA WG supports this change [1]. Jeni [1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0038.html 56854 1 xn--mlform-iua 2011-09-15 14:27:12 +0000 Some resent messages to www-validator@ implicitly asking for HTML+RDfa features: @propery - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2011Sep/0012.html xmlns:fb - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2011Sep/0003.html DC in HTML5 - http://www.w3.org/mid/op.v0ict3p4zrt88r@jchwork.home And more in older messages. 57994 2 msporny 2011-10-09 21:48:14 +0000 If we're going to support LINK and META in flow content like the Microdata spec does, which is fine with the RDF Web Apps WG, we might as well support it in the main HTML5 specification and remove the language from the HTML5 Microdata spec. Ian, what do you think about doing this? Also, is LINK and META being relocated into HEAD no longer a concern in HTML5? I know that this was a concern in older browsers when RDFa was first being introduced, which is why this feature never made it into the browsers. Does the HTML5 spec now prohibit the movement of LINK and META into HEAD? Ian, do you want me to create a bug for the main HTML5 spec that requests that LINK and META are allowed in flow content? That way, both the RDFa and Microdata specs don't need the same language introduced into each spec. 61068 3 ian 2011-12-07 00:14:32 +0000 The separation of microdata from HTML is an artificial editorial conceit for the W3C specification. As far as I'm concerned, the conformance clauses regarding <link> and <meta> as flow content are already in the HTML standard. However, even in this view, <link> and <meta> aren't just allowed in flow content, they are only allowed in flow content if they are being used for microdata. 62163 4 msporny 2011-12-30 17:36:44 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > The separation of microdata from HTML is an artificial editorial conceit for > the W3C specification. As far as I'm concerned, the conformance clauses > regarding <link> and <meta> as flow content are already in the HTML standard. In the WHAT WG version, yes - but only when they contain Microdata attributes. In the W3C version, no. We're discussing the W3C version of the spec. > However, even in this view, <link> and <meta> aren't just allowed in flow > content, they are only allowed in flow content if they are being used for > microdata. There are two approaches that we could take to resolve this issue. 1) The HTML5 specification could say that <meta> and <link> are allowed in flow content when expressing invisible metadata. The major down-side I see in this approach is that it makes <meta> and <link> not really that different from <span>, other than making them slightly more accurate semantic tags. 2) The HTML+RDFa spec could say that <meta> and <link> are allowed in flow/phrasing content as long as they contain certain RDFa attributes. This mirrors what the split-out W3C Microdata specification says and is probably the more acceptable path forward, from Ian's perspective. I'm going to implement #2, understanding that we may have another issue raised at 2nd LC noting that the W3C Microdata and HTML+RDFa specs effectively state the same thing and that we may want to make the text more generalized and do #1, instead. 62169 5 msporny 2011-12-31 03:20:49 +0000 Fixed in latest Editor's Draft: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/ Added this language: """ If any RDFa attribute is present on the link or meta elements, they must be considered flow and phrasing content if used outside of the head of the document. """