Re: RDFa in HTML 4

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> It seems to be that the HTML4+RDFa doc type is useful only if the validator can be hacked as suggested.
>   
Sure - or if we define some alternate mechanism for mapping prefixes in 
the non-XML HTML4 dialect.  Such an alternate mapping is anticipated by 
the CURIE specification.  I don't know what the right answer is here.  
Just that it is a problem we need to solve, and solve quickly to speed 
adoption of RDFa across environments.
> Jeremy
>
> Shane:
> [[
> 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.  The reason the issue of the validator 
> came up at all is that XHTML+RDFa relies upon the XML Namespaces 
> specification and "xmlns:*" attributes.  There is a hack in the 
> validator now to stop it warning about use of those attributes in XML 
> dialects, and we discussed whether a similar hack would work in an SGML 
> context.  
> ]]
>
>
>
>
>
>   

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com