Re: Serving XHTML as HTML -- still valid for RDFa

Sure - there is no need to do anything with regard to the media type to 
PARSE an RDFa document.  And in fact I doubt they rely upon it being 
VALID.  More likely they rely upon it being WELL FORMED.

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Also, on a practical/RDFa level: afaik, most (if not all) RDFa 
> implementation rely on the source being valid XML only or, possibly, 
> valid XHTML+RDFa if they rely on the DTD, but that is it. It is 
> certainly the case with my RDFa distiller.
>
> Ivan
>
> Shane McCarron wrote:
>>
>> This is not an "official" response, but...
>>
>> The XHTML 2 Working Group says that XHTML Family documents SHOULD be 
>> served as text/xhtml+xml - but it is certainly legal to serve them as 
>> text/html.  Its what most sites do when a browser will not accept 
>> text/xhtml+xml.  In the case of IE, where XHTML documents are not 
>> correctly processed, as long as you send the data as text/html and it 
>> has a suffix of .html it seems to be processed as HTML even if the 
>> DOCTYPE says it is XHTML+RDFa or whatever.
>>
>> David Peterson wrote:
>>> Just received this comment from SitePoint [1]:
>>>
>>> -----------------
>>> Comment: I was referring mostly to the fact that the dominant 
>>> browser treats XHTML as HTML, so using XHTML (that is to say, 
>>> serving as XHTML) is not currently viable.
>>>
>>> I don't know if XHTML served as HTML can take advantage of things 
>>> like RDFa. I assume it can, but I don't know.
>>>
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> So, before I respond what is the official answer?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> [1] 
>>> http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/03/14/preparing-your-sites-for-the-data-web/#comment-654414 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>
>

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

Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 13:33:53 UTC