W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [RDFa] XHTML 2.0 only? NO!

From: Simone Onofri <simone.onofri@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:51:38 +0100
Message-ID: <52bd7c3d0702210351i447e9dap604195ff2289c320@mail.gmail.com>
To: "olivier Thereaux" <ot@w3.org>
Cc: ben@adida.net, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Dear Oliver, Ben and all,

> Hello Ben,
> You wrote:
> > There's a bright side to this, though: he likes the RDFa syntax and he
> > says "if you don't care about validation...." which is exactly right
> > until we have an XHTML 1.1 module validator.
> Somebody pointed me to this thread and I am curious to learn more
> about this.
> I think indeed, the ability to validate XHTML with RDFa content will
> be a good push for its adoption, but I am not sure I understand what
> you mean by "an XHTML 1.1 module validator". Do you mean that you are
> working on an RDFa module  using XHTML 1.1 Modularization techniques,
> and/or a profile for XHTML+RDFa (or indeed XHTML+XForms+SVG+MathML
> +RDFa, as done in e.g. [1])? Or that there is a tool in the works for
> it?

In my humble opition I think that both solution are great, expecially
a profile like XHTML+SVG+MathML [1] can be useful. Also for give a
fast way to identify diffusion by checking DTD. I don't hope that
Validator [2] has also statistical purposes (but it can be useful for
stats on standards diffusion [3]). We may also consider to ask User
Agents to downlaod particular DTD. Actually not all User Agents
download these DTD  but use a cached DTD taken, probably, from w3.org



> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusMathMLplusSVG/
[2] http://validator.w3.org
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-evangelist/2006Feb/0002.html
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 11:51:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:49 UTC