an answer to a question from a few weeks ago

(cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force, Mark there's a question for you  
at the bottom.)

Pete,

I apologize for the long-delayed response. Thanks for your comment,  
and let me know if my answer below is satisfactory. I've cut out the  
description and left only the question at the end of your email,  
which I believe summarizes everything. I'm also cc'ing the task-force  
mailing list for the record, and to help others jump in if I've  
missed something.

On Oct 26, 2005, at 1:27 PM, Pete Johnston wrote:
> It seems to me that if RDF/A does _not_ use namespace-qualified  
> names for the attributes, then there is a risk of collision, and so  
> there needs to be some mechanism for indicating explicitly that RDF/ 
> A is in use in an XML instance? Is that the intention please?

This is partly dependent on whether the XML dialect in question  
defaults attribute namespaces to the default XMLNS, or uses no  
namespace (I believe most XML schemas default to no-namespace  
attributes). I think your point is a good one: before RDF/A can be  
used on any XML dialect, these issues need to be clarified.

It's certainly conceivable that, in other XML dialects, RDF/A would  
require namespace-qualified attributes. We haven't thought through  
the details of RDF/A in other XML dialects, though we have tried to  
leave the possibility open, at the very least. We've assumed that  
other dialects would adopt RDF/A just like XHTML2 will: by using some  
Xincluded schema extension. Thus, each top-level schema (XHTML2, SVG,  
etc...) would have to individually resolve potential conflicting uses  
of RDF/A attributes.

That said, your point is well taken: this cannot be applied willy- 
nilly to any XML dialect without careful consideration of the schema.  
We don't intend RDF/A to be used on XML documents whose schema has  
not been "prepared" for RDF/A.

I think it would be worthwhile for us to add a section about this  
issue to the RDF/A syntax document. Mark, what do you think about  
adding such a section?

-Ben

Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 17:59:32 UTC