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

Re: RDF in XHTML [was: Re: Authors describing what their URIs mean]

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:52:49 -0700
Message-ID: <00c001c0c695$ad69e940$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Murray Altheim" <altheim@eng.sun.com>, "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>

> Joshua wrote:-
>
> > the XHTML DTD certainly does not provide assurances
> > that the script contained in a <script>..</script> block is
> > valid,
>
> They're not in XML, so it doesn't have to. XHTML is validated as XML,
> and so is RDF. If you include RDF in XHTML, then you have to validate
> the whole lot as XML. Murray has already pointed out why validation is
> essential, and indeed "conforming to published grammars" is actually
> an accessibility checkpoint [1], listed in WCAG 1.0 [2].

To summarize my understanding:   it seems that there are two kinds of
validations:  grammar and semantics.   Since the semantics of RDF is coded
in the RDF schema, there isn't any way to validate it, except via those
schema.   A DTD will never be capable of validating the semantics of RDF
(nor will XML\Schema?) .... anyway, even if it could, we wouldn't want to
code the same information in different places.   So I guess the problem is,
How do we factor the XHTML validations such that the semantics of RDF become
opaque?

... or am I missing something again ...

But now, I'm beginning to see the wisdom of just putting a link in the
document to an external RDF description file.  That would solve this
dilemma,  wouldn't it?

Could you refresh our memory of the status of that proposal?

Seth
Received on Monday, 16 April 2001 12:56:38 GMT

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