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

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

From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:57:35 +0300
Message-ID: <E657D8576967CF448D6AF22CB42DD26908BFF9@ermhs.athens.brokersystems.gr>
To: "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@w3.org>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>


I also like Patrick Stickler's approach at [1] (actually that's more
like my initial thought about introducing a section in the head element;
I got the idea about adding attributes to the meta element just this
morning, while reading your reply).

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Jun/0002.html

Manos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manos Batsis 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:19 PM
> To: Masayasu Ishikawa; Art.Barstow@nokia.com
> Cc: www-html@w3.org
> Subject: RE: XHTML 2.0 - no interest in RDF/XML?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first question to ask is, what forms of validation will the WG
> offer?
> I am sure that an XML Schema based on [1] will be included 
> as normative. IMHO a Relax NG should also be included; the 
> language is very popular and this will certainly be a demonstration 
> of good will from W3C.
> I also suppose a DTD will probably be offered as well (based on [2]). 
> The above three may not provide the same level of validation 
> though... 
> Has the WG considered this as a problem? 
> What are the current intentions on validation modules?
> 
> > From: Masayasu Ishikawa [mailto:mimasa@w3.org] 
> 
> > "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr> wrote:
> > > 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?
> 
> Yes. Here's something based on [3]:
> 
> <!-- 
>    declaring this as an attribute group per the existing WG practice 
> -->
> <xs:attributeGroup name="skipOtherNSValidation">
>   <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="skip"/>
> </xs:attributeGroup>
> 
> <!--
>    added to the attribute group for the meta element
> -->
> <xs:attributeGroup name="meta.attlist">
>  <xs:attributeGroup ref="I18n.attrib"/>
>  <xs:attribute name="http-equiv" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
>  <xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
>  <xs:attribute name="content" type="Text" use="required"/>
>  <xs:attribute name="scheme" type="Text"/>
>  <xs:attributeGroup ref="skipOtherNSValidation"/>
> </xs:attributeGroup>
> 
> <xs:complexType name="meta.type">
>  <xs:attributeGroup ref="meta.attlist"/>
> </xs:complexType>
> 
> 
> Um... forgive my ignorance but my age puts me in the "new generation" 
> of authors; I have never used DTDs. Can we offer the above 
> functionality
> 
> using DTDs?
> 
> The above may seem kind of loose; one may argue that I can put any 
> number of attributes and still be valid. That is the intention, since
> the 
> document is always the subject and each attribute-value pair 
> corresponds to predicate-object, so we do have correct triples.
> 
> Finally, will the WG consider to document the use of the link element 
> for metadata purposes?
> 
> <link rel="meta" href="someName.rdf" />
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-m12n-schema/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/
> [3]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-m12n-schema/schema_module_defs.html
#a_smodule
_Metainformation

Kindest regards,

Manos
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 06:56:54 GMT

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