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

Re: RDFa RFE: No Mandated DOCTYPE

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:54:05 +0000
Message-ID: <b6bb4d890711300454w2988018dt89df03981eb72459@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

On Nov 26, 2007 2:43 AM, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote:

> would the following be a solution for you?
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>        xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>        version="xhtml11 rdfa svg">

In what specification would the interpretation of the @version values
be given? Would they be extensible by users other than the W3C? I'm
not sure they'd need to be extensible, admittedly.

It's been suggested to me that you meant for @version to be a hook for
namespace GRDDL to dispatch off of; is that something that you thought

This *would* solve the RDFa discovery problem for me, but I'm not sure
how well it would work as a discovery mechanism in general, especially
given the extensibility question and so on. From what Mark and Shane
have said, it sounds like they're only considering @profile at the

See also http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#standardizedFieldValues-51

Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 12:54:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:25 UTC