- From: Simone Onofri <simone.onofri@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:56:07 +0100
- To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "public-grddl-wg Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
> Simone Onofri wrote: > > Thanks Ben for Your clarification. So possibilities through RDFa is > > more and more powerful. Actually, alas, validation (waiting for XHTML > > 2) is a issued that must be considered but like You said, I may study > > also it :) Ben wrote: > Yes, validation is important. Note that right now we're working on an > XHTML 1.1 Module, so that, with the right module declaration, you'll be > able to validate RDFa without having to wait for XHTML2.... > > Your exploration of these issues is really great, by the way. You should > definitely write up your decision process with regards to these issues, > it helps us quite a bit with the RDFa work when we know how best to > explain its advantages and hurdles. Thanks for considerations Ben. So I'm experienced in the use of XHTML 1.1 (but I'm currently using XHTML 1.0 Stricts on my projects). Well, the XHTML module is a good think (why I don't thinked it first?)! :-) So there are typical compatibility issues regarding XHTML 1.1. One linked to Media Types. XHTML 1.1 must be send as XML [1] but IE does not support this media. Luckily there is a workaround to fix it [2] but this may be a problem for GRDDL? Another issue is for rendering page which uses in-page personalized DTD. So the use of a doctype like XHTML plus MathML plus SVG [3] can be the right and simple way (?). Thanks in advice, Simone [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/xhtml-media-types.html#summary [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#browsers [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusMathMLplusSVG/xhtml-math-svg.html
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2007 00:56:17 UTC