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

Re: Update on RDF in XHTML

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 24 Nov 2003 18:35:11 +0100
To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, connolly@w3.org
Message-Id: <1069695318.4306.21233.camel@stratustier>
Hi Joseph (and thanks your feedback and continuous feeding of this
mailing list :)

Le lun 24/11/2003 ŗ 18:21, Joseph Reagle a ťcrit :
> Aside, from the architectural issues of composing XML and DTD/schema stuff, 
> DanC's proposal really did grow on me as the best pragmatic offering. My 
> primary question was would RDF applications be willing to take this 
> requirement on? 

That remains to be seen indeed, but the possibilities that such a system
would offer (basically allowing to integrate a fair number of XHTML
documents in the Semantic Web space) makes me hopeful in that regard. In
any case, should this document be continued, that's probably the 1st
item we'll ask feedback on.

> Also, does an XHTML document only get one profile?

HTML 4.01 (and by inheritance, XHTML 1.0) allows more than one profile:
"""
profile = uri [CT]
This attribute specifies the location of one or more meta data profiles,
separated by white space. For future extensions, user agents should
consider the value to be a list even though this specification only
considers the first URI to be significant. Profiles are discussed below
in the section on meta data.
""" http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#adef-profile

XHTML 1.1 (through XHTML Modularization) only allows one, by setting the
type of the profile attribute to "URI" instead of "URIs", although this
might be more a bug than an intended change. Probably something worth
checking with the HTML WG.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_structuremodule

> Perhaps its best not to 
> grab that attribute if not necessary? 

Could you clarify what you mean by not grabing?

> Via the XSLT 1.0 or other versions, 
> I'd say 1.0 for simplicity, but the mechanism could also be generic (akin 
> to xmldsig transormations, but I'd recommend against that).

I would also favor only 1.0 for now; we can still come up with a new rel
value for the next versions of XSLT if needed.

Thanks,

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org

Received on Monday, 24 November 2003 12:43:44 GMT

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