Page MenuHomePhabricator

RFC: Update our code to use RDFa 1.1 instead of RDFa 1.0
Open, Stalled, Needs TriagePublic


  • Affected components: TBD.
  • Engineer for initial implementation: TBD.
  • Code steward: TBD.


(Define the problem you are seeking to solve.)


(Specify the requirements that a proposal should meet.)


(Proposals and considerations will be documented here.)

Event Timeline

tstarling raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
tstarling updated the task description. (Show Details)
tstarling added projects: TechCom, TechCom-RFC.
tstarling moved this task to Inbox on the TechCom board.
tstarling changed Security from none to None.
tstarling added a subscriber: tstarling.

ArchCom: triaged. Need update from author. Need input from external users on whether anyone uses RDFa 1.0.

Somewhat relevant old RFC; for which code was completed but simply halted because no-one would review it.

It seems the situation has evolved since end 2014 and now major RDFa implementations are 1.1. Recent documentation is for 1.1. As a trend indicator, a query on Google RDFA 1. gives only 1.1 results.

@daniel did you find RDFa 1.0 users? Should we make a call on the mediawiki-l mailing list?

@Dereckson I havn't investigated RDFa 1.0 vs 1.1 at all (hint: I'm not Daniel Friesen). I don't think I have looked into RDFa at all since I wrote the relevant code in Sanitizer some years ago, so I'm not very well suited to lead that discussion. Also, I'm trying to focus on T124792: RFC: Service Locator for MediaWiki core. Perhaps ping @DanielFriesen

I've sent a message to the mediawiki-l mailing list to get input from external users.

Plan is to see if some of them are impacted by the update, and if so, I'll also try to see how and what we can do. I'll then summarize the answers and reassign back the task to @DanielFriesen.

So, all the current documentation and publications are about 1.1

Noone answered the public call made per Tim suggestion to get input from external users at, so it seems it's safe to go on in the process.

The RFC contains rationale, methodology, a code (to rebase) and now a lack of interest of stakeholders to keep RDFa 1.0. As such, it seems ready for discussion for me and it could be interesting to discuss it in next RFC office hour.

daniel changed the task status from Open to Stalled.Jul 22 2019, 4:57 PM

Closing as stalled due to lack of interest/activity.

Krinkle moved this task from Old to P1: Define on the TechCom-RFC board.

Resetting task assigning due to inactivity - feel free to reclaim.