- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:50:56 +0100
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 11 March 2010 10:49, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:50 +0100, Danny Ayers wrote:
>> On 10 March 2010 18:19, Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > <head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>> xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
>> > <meta rel="dcterms:creator" content="Ataru Morobishi">
>> > </head>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > This does bend the XHTML/RDFa standard and also HTML a little (those
>> namespace declarations aren't technically valid)
>>
>> Sorry, but what's not valid about that?
>
> In XHTML 1.x, @rel is not an allowed attribute for <meta>
Right, I missed that one.
, and
> @xmlns:dcterms is not an allowed attribute for <head> (though the W3C
> validator glosses over the latter invalidity).
This is the bit I was getting at from the original statement - if
XHTML is XML+namespaces, then surely this is still acceptable (though
usually redundant because you'd expect to get namespace declarations
on the root element).
Also the <meta> element
> isn't closed.
Right, again I wasn't very observant.
> In HTML 4.x, the two attributes above are still disallowed, as is @xmlns
> on <head>.
For sure.
So let me put it another way, how about -
<head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
<meta scheme="dcterms" name="creator" content="Ataru Morobishi" />
</head>
- ok, it's moving away away from RDFa, but valid or not?
Cheers,
Danny.
--
http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 10:51:30 UTC