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

Re: RDF in XHTML

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:20:46 +0100
Message-ID: <012f01c0c7ae$5a423820$7be493c3@z5n9x1>
To: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>

> We could add a empty parameter entity to allow it to be
> extended in a document's internal subset for custom or
> development use, [...]
>    <!ENTITY % Metadata.ext "">
>    <!ATTLIST  metadata
>        type  NOTATION  (dc|rdf|blat %Metadata.ext;)
>    >

Hmm... you've done this before, haven't you :-) That's very neat
indeed. So I could declare something like:-

   <!NOTATION n3
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//NOTATION Notation3//EN""
     "http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3">
   <!ENTITY % Metadata.ext "| n3" >

To add Notation3 to the element as a notation (er... it's a bit
confusing that I'm using Notation3 as an SGML notation here). Still
putting information like that in the schema (lower case "s") still
seems odd to someone that likes to make first party assertinos in the
documents conformaing to the schemas... e.g. with namespaces, and type
attributes, and so on. I could get used to it though!

> Then, as I mentioned above, the CDATA section DOM node
> [...] would be passed off to processor which would strip off the
> CDATA section wrapper and pass it to another XML parser
> process, which would first well-formedness check it before
> sending it off to the RDF processor.

The trouble I see here is that the processor relies upon getting a
correct list of notation types from the DTD, and being able to
understand and grok the FPIs and system identifiers. Does that
actually work in practise?

> [...] I do maintain that the solution I've described above is likely
> unpalatable to the W3C. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, though.

Well, I hope you will be too. I'm not all that certian about the state
of play of notations in the current XML architecture, but you seem to
outline that making something like the above possible in XHTML would
require a major structural change to XML itself - am I correct? In
that case, I wouldn't be all that optimistic.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2001 22:19:56 GMT

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