- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:02:46 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Murray Maloney" <murray@muzmo.com>, "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On 08/11/06, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > On Nov 8, 2006, at 6:19 AM, Danny Ayers wrote: ... > Indeed. This is what I've called issue-tx-element > http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-tx-element Right, thanks - it rings a bell now. > The only way I can see to embed RDF in XHTML in Atom is something like > RDFa, > i.e. changing the specification of HTML. Won't the RDF/XHTML still be hidden in the tree of the Atom doc? > > (It's not possible for > > the Atom profile to reference every possible content type, any > > namespaced XML can go in). > > On the flip side, it's not sound to ignore containing elements... That sounds intuitively right, but I wouldn't know where to start to give a reasoned justification. > "A naive approach is to say that RDF/XML has its usual meaning wherever > it appears in any XML document. But that would conflict with the > existing practice using RDF/XML in XSLT templates, not to mention > futures any future practice of quoting, quantifying, refuting, or > commenting on embedded RDF expressions." > -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/specbg.html Well yes, that's not far off my concern over issue-mt-ns. > See also TAG issue > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#xmlFunctions-34 > XML Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT, XInclude, Encryption) > raised on 6 Feb 2003 Thanks, hadn't seen that. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 16:02:55 UTC