- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:28:44 -0700
- To: "'Shane McCarron'" <shane@aptest.com>, "'olivier Thereaux'" <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Karl Dubost'" <karl@w3.org>, "'Manu Sporny'" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'RDFa Developers'" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
It seems to be that the HTML4+RDFa doc type is useful only if the validator can be hacked as suggested. Jeremy Shane: [[ What some of us have been discussing OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE RDFa TASK FORCE is whether it would be possible to define a profile of RDFa that was usable in HTML documents. This would be a separate document type, based upon HTML 4.01. It would have its own FPI, and people could use it to validate if they wanted. The reason the issue of the validator came up at all is that XHTML+RDFa relies upon the XML Namespaces specification and "xmlns:*" attributes. There is a hack in the validator now to stop it warning about use of those attributes in XML dialects, and we discussed whether a similar hack would work in an SGML context. ]]
Received on Friday, 18 July 2008 18:29:28 UTC