On Jul 30, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak On 09-07-31 01.35:
Here's an interesting side note: HTML5 actually has a hook for open-
ended extension by other specs. <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#semantics-0
> "Authors must not use elements, attributes, and attribute values
that are not permitted by this specification or *other applicable
specifications*." [emphasis mine]
While less formal than the XHTML Modularization mechanism, it seems
to allow a specification external to HTML5 could define RDFa
additions without also having to copy the full text of HTML5.
Validators could then choose to support profiles that do or don't
support RDFa, based on market demand. I think a draft that just
defined the RDFa additions would engender less potential
controversy than a full alternative draft of all of HTML5.
I suppose "applicable" is the keyword there. HTML 5 defers the
values of the media attribute to the CSS Media Query specification.
That to me makes an example of what is meant w.r.t. to "attribute
value".
That seems like a plausible reading, but it doesn't seem like it would
apply to attributes or elements, only attribute values.
Or perhaps it is meant specs of the microformats kind - narrowing
sub-specifications so to say?
I don't think that was the intent. I think the intent was that another
spec could allow something that's not allowed by HTML5, and HTML5
doesn't declare that combination invalid.
I would not have guessed on the interpretation you give here. But it
would be interesting if it were as you say ... I wonder how one
would decide the profile.
For what it's worth, I asked Hixie about it and he seemed to agree
with my interpretation. I think authors (and validators) could decide
what other specs they think are applicable.
Regards,
Maciej
