RE: Violation of XHTML 1.0

Christoph,

>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.

You may also want to check [1], which covers this topic as well.

Cheers,
	Michael

[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaInHTML

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>Mark Birbeck
>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:20 AM
>To: Christoph
>Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
>Subject: 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
>2.
>
>A high-level view of this structure is available here:
>
>  <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa/ProposedStructure>
>
>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.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mark
>
>-- 
>  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer
>
>  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
>  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com
>
>  standards. innovation.
>
>

Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 08:26:22 UTC