- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 01 Jul 2003 16:57:31 -0500
- To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 16:33, Joseph Reagle wrote: > Dan, during the Semweb CG call today [1] you expressed an interest in the > RDF+XHTML document type specifying (1) how the RDF is extracted from the > XHTML and (2) that the validation service yield triples. This exceeds the > present "dominant" requirement that "The RDF metadata MUST be well-formed > XML but need not be valid XML (RDF validation is left to the discretion of > the RDF application.)" > > Did I understand you correctly, and if so can you speak to the motivation > for your requirement or provide any pointers to how such a validator could > be layered on top of [3] -- if you are familiar with it? I don't see this as a design requirement, but more of a deployment motivation. If there's a service that rewards folks for composing documents the right way, then folks will (more likely) compose their documents the right way. If there's a service that shows that RDF consumers should learn from these documents, then RDF consuming software will (more likely) be enhanced to support this syntax. Also, if the design is too complex to deploy in our RDF validator, then that says something. Hmm... in a way, it does provide a design constraint: it answers all the questions about whether RDF inside <blockquote> is to be taken literally or not; i.e. it makes sure the solution addresses the TAG issue http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35 > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/30-swcg-irc.txt (Member Confidential) > [2] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html#req-rdf-validation > [3] http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 17:58:41 UTC