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

tstarling added projects: ArchCom, ArchCom-RfC.
tstarling moved this task to Backlog on the ArchCom 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.

daniel added a subscriber: daniel.

Somewhat relevant old RFC; for which code was completed but simply halted because no-one would review it.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Update_our_code_to_use_RDFa_1.1_instead_of_RDFa_1.0

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?

Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptMar 18 2016, 6:20 PM

@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

Dereckson claimed this task.EditedMar 19 2016, 2:45 AM

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 https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2016-March/thread.html, 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.