Home/ Questions/Q 8977957
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-06-15T19:29:38+00:00

As (X)HTML5 specification approaches standardization, I prefer using microdata wherever applicable to spoon-feed automated

  • 0

As (X)HTML5 specification approaches standardization, I prefer using microdata wherever applicable to spoon-feed automated tools, followed by RDFa as microdata’s personal feel is as restrictive as concise, followed by microformat2 draft for serving user’s of my work using XSLT, like hAtom2Atom.xsl While Googling sent me to blog.whatwg.org/xhtml5-in-a-nutshell which notoriously claims my question being spam followed by http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/165 which seemed to disable comments, so if I’m out of place here, still kindly guide me please. Sorry Sir Tim Berners-Lee, my reputation isn’t enough to add linked-data tag for semantic-web.

I wish to use hAtom2Atom.xsl to provide syndication feed for my web-site home using microformat hAtom. XML MIME type application/xhtml+xml is set for the virtual directory for .xhtml files through my hosting providers control panel interface. For spoon-feeding meta-data to search engines I’d like to use schema.org RDFa as made possible using http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xhtml-rdfa-20100422/#document-conformance. As Maharashtra’s resident, I’m using xml:lang=”mr-IN” as our state language popularized as South Asian financial capital Mumbai’s official language is Marathi, and the nation is India, so my encoding is UTF-16 so my non-English tags, such as title that tells my family name’s correct pronunciation, work predictably. Then is the following markup correct XHTML5+RDFa 1.1?

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-16"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+RDFa 1.1//EN"
      "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-rdfa-2.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    version="XHTML+RDFa 1.1"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
    xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
                        http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml-rdfa-2.xsd"
    lang="en"
    xml:lang="en">
    <head>

        <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-16"/>
    <title xml:lang="mr-IN">चवाथे</title>
    <link rel="icon" href="/img/icons/me.ico" type="image/x-icon" />
    </head>
    <body>
    </body>
</html>
Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    Its wrong, yet valid! The doctype makes it an older implementation of xhtml than xhtml5 that will prevent from using microdata. However somethings, such as Creative Commons licenses will be ignored at the least desirable occasions by automated tools, if their markup is translated into microdata as explained at http://bnode.org/blog/2010/01/26/microdata-semantic-markup-for-both-rdfers-and-non-rdfers . The correct way to enable RDFa is using <head>... <link rel="profile" href="http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1" /> ...</head> Also this allows to skip rdf prefix for attributes such as prefix and property, but so far nobody seems to be committing to implement rel=”profile” support, so clearly rdf is either to stay with xhtml or historic html, not html5!
    The version attribute is also to be unused as stated at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/#additional-rdfa-processing-rules
    Also, the xmlns are mostly redundant with the prefixes defined by the initial contexts given at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1.html and http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/html-rdfa-1.1

    • 0