- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 11:44:09 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: "ext Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "WWW TAG" <www-tag@w3.org>
> Thus, putting the RDF in the XHTML header seems the > optimal way to go. As the author of many, many, RDF-in-XHTML proposals, I submit that this apporach is distasteful because it makes validation basically impossible. Furthermore, AFAIK it is XHTML and XHTML alone that can decide the meaning of any externally namespaced material embedded within it, and so changes may need to be made to the XHTML specification. Also, I can see these documents being served as text/html, which would raise many issues (such as the fact that RDF IDs would be useless according to the MIME type draft). OTOH, what are namespaces for if not to embed bits of languages in other languages? There is also an approach that can help one get round the validation problem:- * Remove the parts that you can't validate, using XSLT. * Validate the remainder. But the issue of language mixing is long and complicated: how would one specify in the document that you have you apply a transformation first before you validate it? I assume one would use a PI for that: "if you're a validator, remove this junk; if not, parse and process this junk!". I smell a hack. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> . :Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 8 April 2002 06:45:10 UTC