Feature/rdfa lite

Update RDFa to use RDFa Lite only, unless doRDFa is explicitly set to 1.1, in which it also outputs `@inlist` on editors and authors. Removes RDFa 1.0 support, adds specs and fixes bugs.

This should make the default doRDFa="lite" to generate HTML which will validate without warnings.
Okay. Thanks for doing this. In on my phone now but I will look harder when
I get home. Question: does this address the role issue or should I also
merge in my patch for that?
On Dec 15, 2014 7:39 PM, "Gregg Kellogg" <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In tests/spec/w3c/rdfa-spec.js
> <https://github.com/w3c/respec/pull/375#discussion-diff-21872936>:
>
> >          ,   shortName: "some-spec"
> >          ,   publicationDate: "2013-06-25"
> >          ,   previousPublishDate: "2012-06-07"
> >          ,   previousMaturity:  "REC"
> >          ,   specStatus: "PER"
> >          ,   wgPatentURI:  "http://www.w3.org/fake-patent-uri"
> > -        ,   doRDFa: "1.0"
> > +        ,   doRDFa: true
>
> No, that's all been removed. The fact is, except for editors being in a
> list, there's really not a reason to do the RDFa any other way. Markup is
> pretty much the same. In references, we did have some reduced markup
> because of @rel <https://github.com/rel> chaining, but it's hard to say
> that it's any better than the Lite version.
>
> Certainly, if there's some reason to support 1.1 features, we can always
> go back, and of course, any editor can put their own RDFa in their specs.
> The strong sense I got from the conversation was Lite only within respec
> itself, and I think it worked out pretty well.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/w3c/respec/pull/375/files#r21872936>.
>