- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:00:57 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <10970.1023915657@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
This email closes ACTION 2002-06-07#5 Sean B. Palmer posted the following feedback on the www-rdf-comments list, announced in Input on faq-html-compliance http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0170.html and a copy archived at: RDF in HTML: Approaches http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jun/att-0002/01-index In order to create a way to embed RDF in XHTML, the way that the MathML folks did it was to create an all new modular MathML+XHTML DTD but I don't see this as something we should do, since RDF isn't so directed at user markup. Sean came to a couple of tentative conclusions on ways to link and embed; the former using the (x)html <link> element, and the latter embedding an encoded RDF/XML blob in the <script> element with a mime type. The latter seems rather awful and I don't propose we use it, which unfortunately rules out an embedded RDF/XML in XHTML, with validation. Of course, without validation, it works OK as long as the attribute-form of RDF/XML is used. Proposal: We recommend using <link>[1][3] in the <head> of the (x)html which is an approach that Dublin Core has been using for several years on its web site and works ok. In particular we should say to use the <link> type attribute with the value of "application/rdf+xml". With respect to link types[2][4], here the value of the rel attribute. That may be application dependent. Dublin Core has used and recommended rel="meta", which is allowed since [2] notes: "Authors may wish to define additional link types not described in this specification. If they do so, they should use a profile to cite the conventions used to define the link types. Please see the profile attribute of the HEAD element for more details." but that is optional since it is a _should_ not a _must_. I don't think <head profile=".."> would be expected by most applications. However [4] doesn't mention other allowed types! I attach an example of using this. --- I'm open to suggestions to how much emphasis to use here on suggesting / requiring / recommending an approach here. Dave [1] <link> in HTML 4.01 http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-LINK [2] HTML 4.01 link types http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links [3] XHTML Modularization - 5.19 Link Module http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_linkmodule [4] XHTML Modularization - LinkTypes http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstraction.html#dt_LinkTypes
Attachments
- text/html attachment: rdf-in-xhtml.html
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 17:00:58 UTC