- From: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:27:53 -0500
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa Community <public-rdfa@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Le 18 févr. 2009 à 06:28, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
> Note that the Validator.nu HTML Parser currently exposes a XOM tree,
> so a parser exposing XOM is not a theoretical construct. None of the
> currently drafted HTML5 features need the change that exposing
> xmlns:foo-based RDFa would require for consistency with the exposure
> of xmlns:foo in XML.
I still don't get this. Could you explain?
Let's suppose, Gedanken experiment, that the few attributes (@content,
@about, @property, @resource, @datatype, @typeof and xmlns:foo) needed
for "validation talisman" [(c) hsivonen] are added to html5.
For example,
xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" is declared
And in the document, there is
<a rel="cc:license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/"
>Creative Commons License</a>.
For validation, only html:a, html:rel, html:href matters. no?
An authoring help tool could go further, but on another layer, such as
checking if the "cc:" in "cc:license" has been declared. We could also
imagine a tool which once the values have been extracted to create a
graph, if the graph is valid. But all of that is not in the html5
territory. It would be like trying to validate a jpeg image or even
more the XMP content of a JPEG image.
I admit, I'm quite lost (putting aside the RDFa for declaring metadata
as a solution and talking only about the DOM tree).
--
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://twitter.com/karlpro
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 20:28:19 UTC