HTML5 and RDFa support?

Very cool! I didn't see anywhere that FB accepted name. – Evan Carroll Apr 4 '11 at 16:42 Love this one.

There seems to be very few posts that point to this trick. – azure_ardee Apr 27 '11 at 4:04 Current version of W3C validator complains about that the value of the name attribute is invalid. So this solution seems to upset both W3C and FB.

I guess one should use property after all. – Qtax Aug 19 '11 at 18:54.

Both HTML5 and HTML+RDFa 1.1 are still in development, it implies that everything we say her now might be subject to change. There are two sides of your questions: Is it valid? Will it create interoperability issues?

For the validity, you might check at regular pace the implementation status of specifications in the W3C validator. It has an experimental HTML5 validator built into it. Namespaces in HTML5 are still pretty much in debate.

They create issues leading to a different DOM from what is really intended, which leads to my second question: interoperability issues. You can test how the markup is handled with a Live Dom Viewer or use something like Opera Dragonfly to explore the DOM representation of the document in the browser. If you want to explore the topic of HTML5 DOM and RDFa a bit more, you might want to read Jenni's blog post.

Your markup so far is not really an issue, but if you involve javascript, you will have to be careful about namespaces and values with columns.

This 2009 Draft seems to be trying to build a schema which validates for both. dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/rdfa-module.html.

Since for now browsers seem to treat HTML5 elements in the XHTML namespace as you would expect, I can't think of many reasons not to use the XML serialization of HTML5 as it offers nothing but advantages except in terms of IE compatibility and a small size penalty. For now I would follow the RDFa Core as eventually the intention is for RDFa to allow inline metadata annotation in arbitrary XML languages so that if you use it with the HTML vocabulary it should work predictably. That kind of generality should be most useful, it's just a matter of figuring out how to deal with the pre-IE9 problem.

Otherwise you have to deal with the HTML not being XML problem (which IMO is far worse, though this is an unpopular opinion ATM).

1 “except in terms of IE compatibility and a small size penalty” — those are two pretty important considerations on the web. – Paul D. Waite Jan 31 '11 at 21:12 @Paul Well the size thing isn't a big issue except perhaps for the sites with the very highest amounts of traffic since we're only talking a few bytes difference before gzipping for small amounts of XML boilerplate, boolean attribute minimization, and auto-closing tags.

Since neither XML, HTML, nor HTTP are optimized for size there are better returns that can come from looking elsewhere like binary XML formats, more dynamic client-side pages, JSON, etc. – ormaaj Feb 2 '11 at 16:17 1 @omaaj: so, as long as IE 6, 7 and 8 die out, we’re home free. – Paul D. Waite Feb 2 '11 at 18:15 @Paul As long as nobody is paying us for IE 6-8 not to die out, we're home free.

:P – ormaaj Feb 3 '11 at 2:24 Actually one little-known thing about IE is that all versions I've tested will infer html from it's file extension so long as you redirect or set a CNAME to point at /index. Html for example. Obviously a horrible thing to depend upon but could work in a pinch if you could guarantee that all pages work that way.

– ormaaj Feb 3 '11 at 2:34.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.