- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:32:20 -0400
- To: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
On Tuesday 01 July 2003 02:01, Masayasu Ishikawa wrote: > > 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. But what of your (1) XHTML foreign lax schema, or (2) a XHTML+RDF RNG? If I write a profile spec that builds on top of the concept of a lax XHTML document with embedded RDF -- and also specify how to extract the RDF -- what would I have to do to [1] with respect to FPIs, the media type served, or anything else? Or is [1] find just as it is? [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/xhtml-rdf/test-cc.html
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 17:32:23 UTC