Re: Does XSD/RNG Based RDF in XHTML need a new FPI?

Short answer to the question in the subject is no.  I'm not using XHTML
Modularization Framework to define RDF-in-XHTML schema, so there's no
point to try to conform to that spec.

Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> wrote:

> In [1] you noted that the XHTML specification alludes to a "not-so-strictly" 
> conforming XHTML document, of which the RDF-in-XHTML might be of. Just to 
> be clear, I would presume that we do not use any new namespaces (that would 
> be an annoying), but I was wondering then how does one distinguish between 
> such conformance levels?

There's no defined conformance level for "not-so-strictly" conforming
XHTML document, except that it must be well-formed.

> Do you expect there should be a new FPI? I noted 
> that [2] provides "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 plus MathML 2.0 plus SVG 1.1//EN". 
> But that is a case of [3] and we aren't doing XHTML DTD-based 
> modularization...?

Unless there is a normative schema for RDF/XML, we are not going to
define a new XHTML host language document type.

> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2003Jun/0009
> > But here's a trick: we intentionally called it "*strictly* conforming
> > XHTML document", which implies that there could be not-so-strictly
> > conforming XHTML documents.  Section 3.1.2 of the XHTML 1.0 spec
> > illustrates how you MAY use XHTML with other namespaces [3], but
> > it didn't define conformace for that, as we didn't have a good
> > technology to ensure such conformance at that time.  It's based
> > on the 20th century technology, for good or bad.
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusMathMLplusSVG/
> [3] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/conformance.html#s_conform_naming_rules

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 02:01:12 UTC