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

Does XSD/RNG Based RDF in XHTML need a new FPI?

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:52:50 -0400
To: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-Id: <200306301752.50345.reagle@w3.org>


Mimasa,

In [1] you noted that the XHTML specification alludes to a "not-so-strictly" 
conforming XHTML document, of which the RDF-in-XHTML might be of. Just to 
be clear, I would presume that we do not use any new namespaces (that would 
be an annoying), but I was wondering then how does one distinguish between 
such conformance levels? Do you expect there should be a new FPI? I noted 
that [2] provides "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 plus MathML 2.0 plus SVG 1.1//EN". 
But that is a case of [3] and we aren't doing XHTML DTD-based 
modularization...?


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2003Jun/0009
> But here's a trick: we intentionally called it "*strictly* conforming
> XHTML document", which implies that there could be not-so-strictly
> conforming XHTML documents.  Section 3.1.2 of the XHTML 1.0 spec
> illustrates how you MAY use XHTML with other namespaces [3], but
> it didn't define conformace for that, as we didn't have a good
> technology to ensure such conformance at that time.  It's based
> on the 20th century technology, for good or bad.
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusMathMLplusSVG/
[3] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/conformance.html#s_conform_naming_rules

-- 
Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 17:53:45 GMT

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