- From: Pete Johnston <p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:13:40 +0000
- To: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
- CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ben Adida wrote: > I apologize for the long-delayed response. No problem! > Thanks for your comment, and > let me know if my answer below is satisfactory. I've cut out the > description and left only the question at the end of your email, which > I believe summarizes everything. I'm also cc'ing the task-force mailing > list for the record, and to help others jump in if I've missed something. [snip] > It's certainly conceivable that, in other XML dialects, RDF/A would > require namespace-qualified attributes. We haven't thought through the > details of RDF/A in other XML dialects, though we have tried to leave > the possibility open, at the very least. We've assumed that other > dialects would adopt RDF/A just like XHTML2 will: by using some > Xincluded schema extension. Thus, each top-level schema (XHTML2, SVG, > etc...) would have to individually resolve potential conflicting uses > of RDF/A attributes. > > That said, your point is well taken: this cannot be applied willy- nilly > to any XML dialect without careful consideration of the schema. We > don't intend RDF/A to be used on XML documents whose schema has not > been "prepared" for RDF/A. OK. Thanks, yes, that was the point I thought needed clarification. Adding a mention to the spec (as you suggest below) sounds a good idea. > I think it would be worthwhile for us to add a section about this issue > to the RDF/A syntax document. Mark, what do you think about adding such > a section? Pete -- Pete Johnston Research Officer (Interoperability) UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK tel: +44 (0)1225 383619 fax: +44 (0)1225 386838 mailto:p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 19:13:55 UTC