... and no, "Well they define their own RDF and document type" is NOT the huffing answer. They don't do a blasted thing that couldn't have been done with the existing name="" attribute, so why did they feel the need to basically piss on HTML with their own pointless crap?
I cannot seem to get a definitive answer as to the WHY they did this. HOW? sure. Why it "can" be valid if you extend a 4 DTD, sure...
But WHY IT WAS DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE? Yeah, good luck with that!
Side note, anyone else ever get royally pissed off by all the pointless dumbass redundant ones like og:description, og:title, and so forth... as if we don't already have tags and meta for those? I've at least found that when you omit them they fall back on type="description", type="keywords" and the TITLE tag, but still why did they feel the need to replicate EXISTING INFORMATION?
In case you couldn't guess, I hate redundancies.
Tommy Hodgins
CSS & Element Queries
I have no clue why OpenGraph uses non-standard attributes on their meta tags, but if you are adding both OpenGraph information for Facebook and Twitter cards, any redundant field that you already have as OpenGraph Twitter will make use of: developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/optimize-wit…