This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 8980 - HTML+RDFa has should-/may-level requirements for undefined constructs
Summary: HTML+RDFa has should-/may-level requirements for undefined constructs
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LC1 HTML+RDFa (editor: Manu Sporny) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Manu Sporny
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#documen...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-02-14 06:41 UTC by Maciej Stachowiak
Modified: 2011-08-04 05:06 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Maciej Stachowiak 2010-02-14 06:41:19 UTC
In Section 3.1 Document Conformance, HTML+RDFa says:

2. 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.

3. There may be a link element contained in the head element that contains profile for the the rel attribute and http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab for the href attribute.

Neither @version nor rel=profile are defined by this document, or by HTML5, and there is no normative reference cited which defines them as extensions to HTML5.
Comment 1 Manu Sporny 2010-02-16 04:23:33 UTC
RDFA-SPEC-SECTIONS [document-conformance]
Comment 2 Manu Sporny 2010-05-03 02:49:33 UTC
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: 

rel=profile has been removed from the specification.

@version is defined in a new section about the @version attribute

http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/drafts/ED-rdfa-in-html-20100502/#the-version-attribute

It is also defined in the HTML 4.01 + RDFa 1.1 DTD:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/drafts/ED-rdfa-in-html-20100502/#the-html-4.01---rdfa-1.1-dtd

Rationale:

The RDFa WG is no longer considering rel=profile as a versioning solution for RDFa.

The @version attribute was normatively defined in the XHTML+RDFa specification in the XHTML+RDFa Driver Module (DTD). HTML+RDFa never specified a DTD - this has been corrected. To make the support and range of @version abundantly clear, "The version attribute" section was added.
Comment 3 Maciej Stachowiak 2010-05-03 03:08:34 UTC
Thanks, can you please provide a link to the spec diffs (as required by the decision policy)?
Comment 5 Maciej Stachowiak 2010-05-03 05:40:25 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Sure, does this work for you?
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/drafts/ED-rdfa-in-html-20100502/diff-20100304.html#the-version-attribute
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/drafts/ED-rdfa-in-html-20100502/diff-20100304.html#the-html-4.01---rdfa-1.1-dtd

That's fine, but this version is sufficient (and possibly better), assuming it's the correct diff:

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/rdfa/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.20&r2=1.21&f=h

You should be able to get diffs like that for any spec checkin. Please also add some form of appropriate spec diff links to other recently resolved bugs.
Comment 6 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-04 05:06:22 UTC
mass-move component to LC1