Re: Treatment of RDFa in TAG Finding on Self-describing Web and feed back on RDFa in XHTML1.1

Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Dean Edridge wrote:
>> ...
>> Since Steven Pemberton is the HTML Activity Lead, surely he must have 
>> read the HTML5 spec and known that the XHTML variant of HTML5 was 
>> identified by the mime type and namespace and not by any doctype. 
>> There needs to be some sort of identification so that any (X)HTML5 
>> documents are not confused with XHTML1.x documents. Up until now it's 
>> been fine since all XHTML1.x specs have used a doctype, now that it's 
>> been noticed that the XHTML variant of HTML5 doesn't use a doctype, 
>> another WG decides to copy that idea and create problems.
>> ...
>
> I *strongly* disagree with this opinion. If the only method to 
> "understand" the meaning of an HTML (or XML) tag is to check the doc 
> type, we are in deep trouble. 

I'm not saying that it is the *only* way to identify a document. And I 
never mentioned "understand". I never said any of that :)

If the W3C_Validator sees a document with a XHTML1.x doctype it would 
validate it against XHTML1.1+RDFa conformance criteria. If it sees a 
document being sent as application/xhtml+xml with no doctype it can pass 
it over to the Validator.nu/HTML5-facet part of the W3C_Validator and 
the HTML5 feature would check it to see if it is a valid XHTML variant 
of HTML5 document, just like it does today with HTML5 documents that 
contain the HTML5 doctype.

I'm not sure what it is that you're referring to.

> Many tools never will see the doc type (such as XSLT), and the 
> association will be broken as soon as document fragments are copied 
> into other documents.
>
> BR, Julian
>

I don't see how your comment is related to what I have requested.

-- 
Dean Edridge