- From: Michael Bolger <michael@michaelbolger.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:29:49 -0700
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Shane McCarron wrote: >This is a W3C effort, and the W3C has not defined that behavior Not to be a "smart as_", shouldn't they have finished that already? michael bolger Shane McCarron wrote: > > While I agree that it is physically possible... there is no profile, > it is not valid, it requires the use of XML Namespaces, etc. It is > not something that the HTML community would ever have agreed to. You > parsers might swallow it, but that doesn't mean it is something we > should encourage. This is a W3C effort, and the W3C has not defined > that behavior. > > Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >> >> On 16 Jul 2008, at 06:21, Shane McCarron wrote: >> >>> >>> This is a global comment - if you need more specifics I can do that >>> but I hope this will be good enough. The Primer talks about HTML. >>> That's very very bad. We don't define anything for HTML. >>> Anywhere. Misleading people into thinking they can annotate their >>> HTML 4 documents with RDFa is not good for 2 reasons. >> >> >> They can; it is not misleading. >> >> (I am not trying to grind an axe here ... merely reporting that, for >> example, both Jena's support and TopQuadrant's support for RDFa >> starts off by applying tidy to the input which means that HTML 4 docs >> get converted into XHTML and everything works at a practical level - >> it might not be chapter and verse conformant, but it is practically >> useful) >> >> Jeremy >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 14:31:50 UTC