Re: Violation of XHTML 1.0

Hi Christoph,

> I've got a question concerning RDFa and XHTML 1.0.
> Is it correct that the only parts of RDFa, which violate XHTML 1.0 are
> the <link> and <meta> tags?
> That would mean, if I use RDFa without Reification and don't create
> Blank Nodes using meta/link elements, I'll get valid XHTML 1.0 ?

Sort of. :)

We're in the home straight of RDFa now, and one of the things we're
looking at in this final stretch is whether to make it so that RDFa
makes *no* changes to its host language, other than adding some new
attributes. This would mean, for example that in XHTML 1.0, the
following would no longer be valid:

  <span rel="p" href="o">Label</span>

It _would_ be valid in XHTML 2, but that is because XHTML 2 allows
@href to appear anywhere in a document as a clickable link.

(Note that to achieve an object that is a resource in XHTML 1.0, you
would use @resource.)

So this means that the ability to place <link> and <meta> anywhere in
a document would also disappear, in versions of XHTML prior to XHTML

A high-level view of this structure is available here:


This is not intended to be a document with any standing...more of a
'notepad' where we can keep track of features that are in the host
language, and features that are in the core of RDFa.

One last thing, this whole topic is different to the question of
validity; we're working on DTDs and schemas to validate HTML+RDFa and
XHTML+RDFa so whatever mark-up structure we use, we can validate it.



  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 |

  standards. innovation.

Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 08:20:21 UTC