W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2010

Re: RDFa for Turtles 2: HTML embedding

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:50:56 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd1003110250o43381163he3ee4d1b88a69d93@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 11 March 2010 10:49, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:50 +0100, Danny Ayers wrote:
>> On 10 March 2010 18:19, Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > <head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>> xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
>> >     <meta rel="dcterms:creator" content="Ataru Morobishi">
>> > </head>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > This does bend the XHTML/RDFa standard and also HTML a little (those
>> namespace declarations aren't technically valid)
>>
>> Sorry, but what's not valid about that?
>
> In XHTML 1.x, @rel is not an allowed attribute for <meta>

Right, I missed that one.

, and
> @xmlns:dcterms is not an allowed attribute for <head> (though the W3C
> validator glosses over the latter invalidity).

This is the bit I was getting at from the original statement - if
XHTML is XML+namespaces, then surely this is still acceptable (though
usually redundant because you'd expect to get namespace declarations
on the root element).

 Also the <meta> element
> isn't closed.

Right, again I wasn't very observant.

> In HTML 4.x, the two attributes above are still disallowed, as is @xmlns
> on <head>.

For sure.

So let me put it another way, how about -

<head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
            xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
   <meta scheme="dcterms" name="creator" content="Ataru Morobishi" />
</head>

- ok, it's moving away away from RDFa, but valid or not?

Cheers,
Danny.


-- 
http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 10:51:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:25 UTC