W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Authors describing what their URIs mean

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:35:12 -0700
Message-ID: <006601c0c576$3a9aa500$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Does anyone know *specifically* why it is not a valid document (sorry I
can't seem to find that information)?

There must be some way for authors to correctly descibe their web documents
with RDF embedded in the documents.  The problem is not that this particular
example fails validation, the problem is how to embedd RDF in a www document
correctly.

Let's find out where it really hurts, fix it, and move on ....

Seth

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>
To: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:48 PM
Subject: RE: Authors describing what their URIs mean


> I don't think I agree with Seth's argument here - ignoring a spec is a
risky
> approach, whether or not the majority of browsers will accept it is
another
> issue (the spectre of browser wars looms). More worrying is how a machine
is
> expected to interpret the information (browsers are *not* the only readers
> of HTML) - surely document validity is an important prerequisite? (though
> admittedly not always essential) If the silverware isn't stamped, how do
we
> know it's silver? I certainly don't think this is minutia or absurd -
rather
> fundamental, and rational in fact.
>
> I'm not sure, but probably until this issue is resolved, I think it would
be
> better practise to use meta tags in HTML rather than invalidate the
document
> with shoehorned RDF.
>
> (BTW, righteously following the Dans' suggestions I've cut 6 targets out
of
> the To: & CC: fields. Now how do I collect my bandwidth rebate?)
>
> ---
> Danny Ayers
> http://www.isacat.net
>
> <- -----Original Message-----
> <- From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org
> <- [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Joshua Allen
> <- Sent: 15 April 2001 07:11
> <- To: Seth Russell; Lee Jonas; Charles McCathieNevile; Danny Ayers
> <- Cc: RDF Logic; RDF Interest; Aaron Swartz
> <- Subject: RE: Authors describing what their URIs mean
> <-
> <-
> <- (Seth, speaking of the uncertainty caused by the fact that RDF embedded
> <- in HTML as per the FAQ fails the W3C validation for HTML 4.01 and XHTML
> <- 1.0):
> <- >absurdity.  If the semantic web is to happen, then such unforgiving
> <- minutia
> <- >as this, will have to be left happily behind us.
> <-
> <- FWIW, I tested the example in the FAQ and it works without complaint in
> <- Netscape 6, Netscape 4.75, Opera 5, and IE 6.  It does not work in
> <- Amaya.
> <-
> <- So I see no need to hesitate..
> <-
> <- -J
> <-
>
>
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2001 02:39:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT