This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Section 3.1 Document Conformance has a bullet point that says: "All document conformance requirements stated as mandatory in the HTML5 specification must be met." However, section 5 allows some extensions to the HTML5 syntax. I assume the intent is that these extensions are allowed in a conforming HTML5+RDfa document; the bullet point should make this clear.
RDFA-SPEC-SECTIONS [document-conformance extensions-to-the-html5-syntax]
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: Fixed Change Description: Added the following bullet item to the list of conformance criteria: "All Extensions to the HTML5 Syntax, as described in this document, must be considered valid and conforming in a HTML+RDFa 1.1 document." http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/drafts/ED-rdfa-in-html-20100502/#document-conformance Rationale: There is no harm in making it crystal clear that the HTML5 syntax extensions in the document should be considered conforming.
Diff-marked version: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/drafts/ED-rdfa-in-html-20100502/diff-20100304.html#document-conformance
mass-move component to LC1