W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2005

Re: RDDL->RDF (was Re: Draft agenda of 22 February 2005 TAG

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:25:42 +0100
To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <422c57f9.9036562@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>I agree that a RDDL document by construction violates the implied
>"SHOULD NOT" recommendation here.  I'm not sure I think that
>recommendation is correct for RDDL, however, in two ways:

How about sending your feedback to www-html-editor@w3.org? RFC 2854
makes it currently pretty clear that only XHTML 1.0 documents that
adhere to the guidelines set forth in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0
Recommendation may be published using the text/html documents and
e.g. the W3C Markup Validator consequently only recognizes text/html
documents as XHTML documents if those use a XHTML 1.0 formal public
identifier, so documents like http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.html
cannot possibly pass the W3C Markup Validator. So either the HTML
Working Group needs to change the rules or such documents should not
use the text/html media type or not use RDDL as W3C should not
publish HTML/XHTML documents that cannot pass their own Validator.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2005 20:14:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:33 GMT