W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Validation Update: success!

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:13:29 -0500
Message-ID: <46811F09.2070804@aptest.com>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: Keith Alexander <k.j.w.alexander@gmail.com>, CÚdric Mesnage <cedric.mesnage@lu.unisi.ch>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Ben Adida wrote:
> Okay, but if you use the RDFa DTD, then you clearly intend RDFa, right?
> Otherwise, you're saying that @profile is the only way to provide
> semantics. That seems a bit too GRDDL-centric a view. See below: I think
> existing HTML DTDs provide plenty of semantics already.
>   
I fear we are conflating two or possibly three things.  Ben, you keep 
talking about HTML.  In the context of this discussion I think sometimes 
you mean HTML4 and sometimes you mean XHTML 1.1.  Let's look at both:

HTML 4(.01) has a variety of inherent semantics.  These are defined by 
its specification.  HTML 4(.01) has an implementation in a DTD.  The DTD 
conveys no semantics.  It is a collection of syntax rules.  A document 
that has a DOCTYPE that references an HTML 4.01 FPI is saying "I am an 
HTML document".  That's great.  The HTML 4.01 DTD is by its very nature 
extensible, and I have created an extended version of the HTML 4.01 
Transitional DTD as an example.  The fact that the implementation is 
done in a DTD has nothing whatsoever to do with the semantics.  Note 
that there will NEVER be an XML Schema implementation of HTML 4.01 nor 
of HTML4.01+RDFa, since HTML 4.01 is not an XML dialect.

XHTML 1.1 has an XML DTD and an XML Schema implementation.  These are 
based upon XHTML Modularization.  I have prepared M12N-compatible 
modules for RDFa using both XML DTD and XML Schema.  I have also 
prepared an implementation of XHTML+RDFa using XML DTDs.  Again, no 
semantics.  Syntax. In due course, I will also provide an XML Schema 
implementation of XHTML+RDFa.  However, again, an XML Schema 
implementation has NO SEMANTICS EITHER.  Its just syntax rules.  The 
semantics are defined in the prose specification.

As to how we know some document contains RDFa annotation that can be 
transformed into RDF.... Personally I think that the DOCTYPE is an 
excellent indicator, assuming we provide a well known DOCTYPE name.  A 
well known profile can't hurt, but DOCTYPEs are well understood, and 
browsers know to look at them, and validators do too.

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 14:14:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:23 UTC