W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Validating XHTML with embedded RDF

From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:48:08 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20030626.174808.71093752.mimasa@w3.org>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> wrote:

> XHTML1.*
> 1. Hacks: 
>  a. Commenting out the RDF, 
>  b. Sticking in a script tag.
> 
> Assessment: These are architecturally inelegant -- though I actually prefer 
> the script element over comments and wonder what led CC to use a comment... 
> These are the solutions to beat.

b. is a non-starter at all.  Unlike HTML 4, the content model of
the script element in XHTML 1.* is #PCDATA.

> 2. Validation: 
	<snip/>
> e. Create a new sort of XHTML1.* document using RNG that validates the XHTML 
> and RNG. This is the only thing *not* done by Mimasa <smile/>, though I 
> assume it could be done?

I have XHTML schemata in RELAX NG and already demonstrated an MNS schema
for XHTML2+MathML+SVG+EGIX+ContactXML+HLink+RDF+XMLCharEnt.

  cf. http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/schemas/rng/hybrid.mns

It's fairly easy to write up an XHTML 1.* version instead of XHTML 2,
probably using NRL instead of MNS.

> Assessment: Since Schema is mature and a W3C REC, I think option C has the 
> most likely chance of success and it requires constituencies to write the 
> formal specification, the schemas, and support a validator. The schemas are 
> already written, and I think a validator could be trivially layered on top 
> of XSV, so the task would then to formally specify it and publish it as a 
> NOTE, RFC, or REC...

Actually I would say specifying an "open" schema is a bit tricky issue.
You have to specify exactly where you want to allow extensions, and
that needs careful consideration.  Personally I'd much prefer opening
up a closed schema through NRL or something similar.

> XHML2.0
> Similar to XHTML1.* but we know:
> 1. It will be based on XML Schema from the start -- though I'm still unsure 
> what that community will do without the entities they are so fond of.

More precisely it will be defined by the abstract definition and may be
implemented in various schema languages, including XML Schema.

> 3. They have *NOT* agreed to replace the meta element with RDF, nor to use 
> it nor lend it any support beyond possibility of ignoring it (i.e., laxly 
> valid). This is because even XML Schema can't validate generic RDF. I think 
> to get the HTML WG to actually include and *rely* upon RDF as part of the 
> core specification, I think they'd have to use RNG, which I don't think is 
> likely. (Again, we could define a document on the side and provide a 
> validator, but it wouldn't be *part* of the core XHTML spec.)

We've already normatively adopted RELAX NG for XHTML 2.0, partly because
RDF/XML was only defined in RELAX NG.

  cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xhtml2-20030506/xhtml20_relax.html#a_xhtml20_relaxng

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 04:48:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:58 GMT