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...



> (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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:26 UTC