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

Re: Treatment of RDFa in TAG Finding on Self-describing Web and feed back on RDFa in XHTML1.1

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:52:23 +0200
Message-ID: <48EDFE87.1090104@gmx.de>
To: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>

Dean Edridge wrote:
>> I *strongly* disagree with this opinion. If the only method to 
>> "understand" the meaning of an HTML (or XML) tag is to check the doc 
>> type, we are in deep trouble. 
> 
> I'm not saying that it is the *only* way to identify a document. And I 
> never mentioned "understand". I never said any of that :)
> 
> If the W3C_Validator sees a document with a XHTML1.x doctype it would 
> validate it against XHTML1.1+RDFa conformance criteria. If it sees a 
> document being sent as application/xhtml+xml with no doctype it can pass 
> it over to the Validator.nu/HTML5-facet part of the W3C_Validator and 
> the HTML5 feature would check it to see if it is a valid XHTML variant 
> of HTML5 document, just like it does today with HTML5 documents that 
> contain the HTML5 doctype.
> 
> I'm not sure what it is that you're referring to.

What I'm trying to say is that if the *interpretation* of an XHTML tag 
(as identified by namespace-URI + local name) depends on the doctype of 
the document is appears in, then we are in trouble (because we're 
introducing a dependency on DTDs we are not supposed to have anymore).

>> Many tools never will see the doc type (such as XSLT), and the 
>> association will be broken as soon as document fragments are copied 
>> into other documents.
>>
>> BR, Julian
>>
> 
> I don't see how your comment is related to what I have requested.

I read your comment as "if one element appears in documents with 
different doctypes, it's ok it it get's treated differently as well". 
Apparently you weren't suggesting that, so, ok.

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2008 12:53:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 October 2008 12:53:08 GMT