- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:38:36 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- CC: "'olivier Thereaux'" <ot@w3.org>, "'Karl Dubost'" <karl@w3.org>, "'Manu Sporny'" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'RDFa Developers'" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > It seems to be that the HTML4+RDFa doc type is useful only if the validator can be hacked as suggested. > Sure - or if we define some alternate mechanism for mapping prefixes in the non-XML HTML4 dialect. Such an alternate mapping is anticipated by the CURIE specification. I don't know what the right answer is here. Just that it is a problem we need to solve, and solve quickly to speed adoption of RDFa across environments. > 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. > ]] > > > > > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 18 July 2008 22:39:21 UTC