It’s just data
I wish they would call it “RDFa for HTML,” as HTML processors aren’t expected to treat HTMLn differently for all N.
Posted by Edward O'Connor atEdward: that comment is actually more general than RDFa.
For all practical purposes, HTML5 is the fifth major approximation to how browsers interpret HTML. If you take the examples from the early drafts of HTML, they still (mostly?) work. No browsers that support image tags or tables refuse to respect such simply because the doctype used with the document doesn’t support them.
Posted by Sam Ruby atIt’s great that RDFa is now attending to HTML, but the fact that the editors focus on HTML5 rather than HTML4 is more of the same in terms of keeping the Semantic Web in the state of “that thing which will be after whatever folks are doing today”.
eRDF did all that can be done with RDF as HTML4 and should have gotten a full press from the Semantic Web folks in order to gently steer the microformatters on to the track of making their markup machine comprehensible.
Posted by Jim White at