- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:16:18 +0100
- To: "Tim Bagot" <tsb-w3-html-0003@earth.li>
- Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
> This is unlikely to happen: HTML is essentially frozen now, > in favour of XHTML. And considering that HTML already offers a weak extensibility mechanism in the from of a profile attribute on the head element, this is even more unlikely. However, the rationale behind link types has been discussed for some types, and a great number of link type values have been enumerated. Background reading:- http://fantasai.tripod.com/qref/Appendix/LinkTypes/ltdef.html http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/tomrobin/HTML_Link_Types.html That's a lot of link types. > I think this is where people start muttering about metadata > and RDF. Perhaps, and XHTML 2.0 will address this issue. Of course, the RDF-in-XHTML thing has been discussed all too often now. More background reading:- http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/ - HyperRDF: Using XHTML Authoring Tools with XSLT to produce RDF Schemas http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Aug/0218 - RDF-In-XHTML; A "New" Approach http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global#profiles - Meta data profiles, HTML 4.01 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/thread#206 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/thread#241 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/thread#274 - Threads From RDF IG, April 2001 Personally, I do not think that embedding RDF graph serializations into XHTML is at all a good idea, even for a canonical form. Data in documentation should be carefully scoped. Cheers, -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 19:16:24 UTC