On 16 Sep 2009, at 18:19, Philip Taylor wrote:
Are you suggesting that Google should intentionally violate the RDFa specification? Or are you suggesting the RDFa specification should be relaxed to allow implementers freedom in handling invalid documents? I think it must be one or the other, as long as Google is claiming to implement RDFa.
Neither. I am claiming that implementers will often want to implement a superset of RDFa. e.g. they'll want to parse RDFa plus some other HTML semantics (like <blockqu...@cite>, <title>, etc).
-- Toby A Inkster <mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
