- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:01:15 -0400
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hello, Shane, all. On 18-Jul-08, at 12:22 PM, Shane McCarron wrote: > I think that you have misunderstood the basic thread here (or we > never said it out loud). No one is proposing updating HTML 4 - that > would be a nightmare. > > What some of us have been discussing OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE RDFa > TASK FORCE is whether it would be possible to define a profile of > RDFa that was usable in HTML documents. This would be a separate > document type, based upon HTML 4.01. It would have its own FPI, and > people could use it to validate if they wanted. I see, thanks for the clarification. As a web content author my immediate reaction is “ugh, ANOTHER doctype to choose from!?”, but I'm no expert, so it's probably not a relevant impression. As far as markup validation is concerned however, if there is a doctype and a DTD, the validator will happily validate. Thank you, -- olivier
Received on Friday, 18 July 2008 17:01:49 UTC