7 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 7 previous comments
- Er, why? HTML5 isn’t trying to be XML-friendly and XML isn’t designed for embedding un-XML-friendly data. I suspect mixing them is not worth the trouble.Feb 13, 2012
- schema.org could be made less off-putting to the XHTML community by simply having a "show me valid XML" switch for their examples. Your reaction probably isn't unique.(re: itemscope="") Which is what happens implicitly with an empty attribute (the DOM will present an attribute value of the empty string), but I'm wondering if
(If it isn't obvious, I'm now sold on the value of schema, though I was originally on the fence, and would like to see it do everything it needs to in order to succeed.)Feb 13, 2012
- rightly so. I was just wondering, since a lot of websites are currently using XHTML and are told "add these tags to make your web thing work better", if there's any proper way of doing it without digging into each snippet and figuring out the quirks.Feb 13, 2012
- HTML5 is defined in terms of the Infoset, then there are an XML serialization (aka XHTML5) and the HTML serialization we all know about.
For a so-called boolean attribute, like itemscope, you can either use itemscope="" or itemscope="itemscope" (à la SGML).
See http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/common-microsyntaxes.html#boolean-attributesFeb 13, 2012
- Cool. But G+ works it out right for my blog anyway (WP), with no extra markup, so why would I bother? :-)Feb 13, 2012
- Keep in mind that RDFa 1.1 Lite will be supported by schema.org as well in the near future:
Your blog description would be this in RDFa 1.1:
<body vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="Blog">
The benefit is that if you use RDFa 1.1, you can also use Facebook OpenGraph markup (which is really just RDFa) at the top of your page as well and use the same simple markup language to target both Facebook and Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/Yandex.Feb 13, 2012