W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Section 1 of the New RDFa Syntax Draft ready for reviews

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:48:14 +0100
Message-ID: <479F046E.8010700@w3.org>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>, Michael Bolger <michael@michaelbolger.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, peter.krantz@gmail.com


Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
> 
>> - HTML4 is not in XML, right? I just wonder whether the very DOM
>> oriented processing steps would be appropriate. What seems to be
>> relatively straightforward is an XHTML1.0+RDFa, the question is whether
>> doing the corresponding DTD would be that easy.
> 
> I think XHTML+RDFa is easier to define...that's true. And in terms of
> processing RDFa on a server, it's also slightly easier to implement
> than HTML+RDFa, because you can use XML tools.
> 
> But a consequence of XHTML not being 'standard' across browsers, is
> that there is no difference between implementing an XHTML+RDFa and an
> HTML+RDFa parser.
> 
> This is because, although an enormous number of documents are created
> as XHTML on the server, they are delivered to the client as
> "text/html", which will switch the browser into HTML mode. So anyone
> writing a client-side parser for XHTML+RDFa is almost certainly going
> to have to write it so that it works in 'HTML mode'.
>

Well... my implementation starts with an XML parser, and does everything 
on the resulting DOM tree. Ie, it will not work on an HTML+RDFa version 
unless it is proper XML...

:-(

Ivan

> (Which is incidentally why I used the DOM idea to define the
> processing, because it works with both HTML DOMs and XHTML DOMs.)
> 
> I'm not saying anything here about the original question -- I think
> we'll get to the HTML+RDFa side when we're ready. I'm merely pointing
> out that technically it's a no-brainer, because we took care to make
> sure that this was so. As Shane says, the only piece missing to create
> an HTML+RDFa Syntax is a way to set the prefix mappings. (And even
> then, that's only because it seems odd to use the @xmlns mechanism in
> HTML.)
> 
> 
>> - The real issue is, however, HTML5. And that is only where a crystal
>> ball would help:-)
> 
> Indeed. :)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 10:48:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 January 2008 10:48:21 GMT