This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
There is an effort to create a polyglot HTML5/XHTML5 spec: http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide RDFa in HTML is a natural feature to specify in a polyglot way. And the HTML+RDFa begins optimistically: ]] This specification defines rules and guidelines for adapting the RDFa Core 1.1 specification for use in HTML5 and XHTML5. The rules defined in this specification not only apply to HTML5 documents in non-XML and XML mode, but also to HTML4 and XHTML documents interpreted through the HTML5 parsing rules. [[ And it also has this concrete example, which seems like it could be valid both in XHTML5 and in HTML5. ]] An example of a conforming HTML+RDFa document: <html version="HTML+RDFa 1.1" lang="en"> [[ But, alas, another section talks about one HTML (text/html) way and another XHTML way: ]] There should be a version attribute on the html element. The value of the version attribute should be "HTML+RDFa 1.1" if the document is a non-XML mode document, or "XHTML+RDFa 1.1" if the document is a XML mode document. [[ The *fails* to speak about the version attribute for HTML401+RDFa. Would it be <html version="HTML 4.01+RDFa 1.1"> ? There seems to be two options for turing HTML+RDFa into a polyglot spec: EITHER: forbid all XHTML-isms (such as xmlns) in HTML5 documents that are *not* polyglot (aka XHTML) documents. (This means that HTML4+RDFa must be dropped.) OR: create a versioning mechanism which is independet of text/html vs application/xhtml+xml. I don't know if this is possible or even desirable. But regardless: by having a method which would work also in a polyglot spec, then this option would be possible to deal with. Other options: XHTML 1.0+RDFa: A DTD for XHTML 1.0+RDFa seems much more relevant, than a DTD for HTML401+RDFa. Both when we consider what authors (e.g. Facebook) actually do but also because XHTML 1.0 is a defacto polyglot spec - the Appendix C section of XHTML1.0 is permitted in the text/html serialization of HTML5. An XHTML5+RDFa Doctype: Tools in the wild already *depends* on the doctype http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1204.html Therefore a DTD less XHTML5+RDFa doctype would also serve as input to the versioning ISSUE of HTML5 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0015 Proposed DOCTYPE: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//XML XHTML5+RDFa 1.1//EN" "about:legacy-compat">
I need to talk with you in more depth about what you want here and why it would be a good idea. I haven't been tracking the polyglot spec discussion, so will need an overview of what we're trying to accomplish here. My contact info: e-mail: msporny digitalbazaar com, Skype: msporny, Twitter: manusporny
I think it was an error of me to file this bug. THe polyglot spec only covers documetns which are exactly HTML5 - without extensions - and exactly XHTML. While HTML+RDFa is an extension by itself and thus can never be a conforming HTML5 document in the narrow sense.
mass-move component to LC1