W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2002

Re: XHTML 2.0 - no interest in RDF/XML?

From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:04:44 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20020814.180444.104053364.mimasa@w3.org>
To: www-html@w3.org

> Art.Barstow@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> Given the W3C's huge investment in the RDF metadata framework,
> why does the Metainformation Module in the 2002-08-05 WD of XHTML 2.0 
> not accommodate (or at least mention) the XML serialization of RDF?

If you can show us a feasible proposal, I would be interested in
looking at it.

Remember, this is the very first draft, everything is subject to
change and there are many thing the WG has discussed but not yet
reflected in the draft.   Actually there are proposed changes
to the Metainformation Module not yet reflected in the current
draft.  It won't go very far, though (doesn't accept RDF directly).

We are observing "RDF in (X)HTML" discussion here and there, and
it seems not all people prefer to put RDF directly in XHTML.  There's
a couple of technical issues to be solved.

"Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr> wrote:

> I can fully understand the reason behind this omission, since the XHTML standard simply cannot cover validation issues, namelly an infinite set of namespaces that can possibly be used in RDF like documents or document fragments.

That's certainly one of obstacles.  If people still want some sort of
DTD validation, putting RDF directy is simply impossible.

> Note that W3C has not presented an XML Schema for the RDF serialization in XML either, much for the same reason.

Right, actually that's one of reasons why I'm (personally, not
officially) playing with RELAX NG schema for XHTML2.  As shown
in the revised RDF/XML Syntax Specification, there is some hope
to express RDF in RELAX NG:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-RELAXNG-Schema

> So, I guess that the WG leaves this to authors, who can use XHTML modularization to solve this.

Well, it's up to people's opinion.   If many people strongly request
it, the WG would try to find a solution seriously.  But that would
require some cost, e.g. give up DTD validation.

> I would ask for the WG to formally introduce a section in the <head> element where validation is skipped (using the corresponding XML Schema construct), to urge authors in the use of full powered RDF fragments.

namespace="##other" with processContents="skip", you mean?

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 05:04:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT