8979 2010-02-14 06:38:36 +0000 Please reconsider should-level requirement for version attribute 2011-08-04 05:06:03 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML+RDFa (editor: Manu Sporny) unspecified PC All RESOLVED WONTFIX http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#document-conformance P2 normal --- 1 mjs msporny mike msporny public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 31977 0 mjs 2010-02-14 06:38:36 +0000 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. 32119 1 msporny 2010-02-16 04:23:18 +0000 RDFA-SPEC-SECTIONS [document-conformance] 35353 2 msporny 2010-05-03 01:36:36 +0000 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. 53021 3 mike 2011-08-04 05:06:03 +0000 mass-move component to LC1