Re: Serving XHTML as HTML -- still valid for RDFa

Also, on a practical/RDFa level: afaik, most (if not all) RDFa 
implementation rely on the source being valid XML only or, possibly, 
valid XHTML+RDFa if they rely on the DTD, but that is it. It is 
certainly the case with my RDFa distiller.

Ivan

Shane McCarron wrote:
> 
> This is not an "official" response, but...
> 
> The XHTML 2 Working Group says that XHTML Family documents SHOULD be 
> served as text/xhtml+xml - but it is certainly legal to serve them as 
> text/html.  Its what most sites do when a browser will not accept 
> text/xhtml+xml.  In the case of IE, where XHTML documents are not 
> correctly processed, as long as you send the data as text/html and it 
> has a suffix of .html it seems to be processed as HTML even if the 
> DOCTYPE says it is XHTML+RDFa or whatever.
> 
> David Peterson wrote:
>> Just received this comment from SitePoint [1]:
>>
>> -----------------
>> Comment: I was referring mostly to the fact that the dominant browser 
>> treats XHTML as HTML, so using XHTML (that is to say, serving as 
>> XHTML) is not currently viable.
>>
>> I don't know if XHTML served as HTML can take advantage of things like 
>> RDFa. I assume it can, but I don't know.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> So, before I respond what is the official answer?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/03/14/preparing-your-sites-for-the-data-web/#comment-654414 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf