Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-29: mime type of RDFa document

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> not pushing aside your question (for which I do not have a clear answer
> at the moment, I must admit), can you explain how this issue influences
> the original ISSUE-29?

Sure. Mime types define semantics of #blah. There are established, but 
different, precedents for the existing RDF and XHTML mimetypes. I wanted 
to make sure that if the XHTML mime type route is taken, there is no 
unexpected impact on #blah usage for non-document resources.

Does that make sense?

Dan