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

I understand. However, and this is probably my answer to the original
ISSUE: I do not think we have *any* feasible alternative than to follow
the MIME type of the 'host' document.

Ivan

Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf