W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Reviewing Last Call RDFa

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:25:26 -0500
Message-ID: <47E443E6.3020307@aptest.com>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Danny,

The XHTML 1.1 document you were looking at is a Working Draft developed 
against a Working Draft of XHTML Modularization 1.1.  We need to get 
M12N 1.1 through to CR->PR->REC before we can start using the schema 
m12n techniques in markup languages such as XHTML+RDFa.

Danny Ayers wrote:
>
>     > 4.1   "There SHOULD be a DOCTYPE declaration in the document
>     prior to
>     > the root element."  DTDs are a an obsolete technology. Suggest
>     the spec
>     > not refer to them in any way.
>
>
>     We would be happy to do so.... if only there was a W3C REC (and a
>     validator.w3.org <http://validator.w3.org> implementation) for
>     validating XHTML1.1 using XML
>     schema. Sadly, there isn't, and since we get a lot of "this won't
>     validate!" criticism, we had to go with DOCTYPE and DTDs.
>
>
> Under 'Conformance' in XHTML 1.1 I found:
> [[
> The root element MAY also contain an schemaLocation attribute as 
> defined in the [XMLSCHEMA] 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/references.html#ref_XMLSCHEMA>. The 
> schema location for XHTML is defined to be 
> "|http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml11.xsd|".
>
> There MUST be a DOCTYPE declaration in the document prior to the root 
> element. If present, the public identifier included in the DOCTYPE 
> declaration MUST reference the DTD found in Appendix C 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11_dtd.html#a_xhtml11_dtd> using 
> its public identifier. The system identifier MAY be modified 
> appropriately.
>  ]] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/conformance.html#s_conform
>
> So it looks there's no avoiding the DOCTYPE, though there may be a 
> route around the DTD while still allowing validation.
>
> Is the association between the doc and the schema essential - not 
> enough in media type & namespace etc to adequately identify the 
> document type?
> (Reason I ask is my money would be on Relax NG being able to provide 
> neater validation of HTML+RDFa than xsd, but I don't believe there's 
> any in-doc way of making the association).
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
> -- 
> http://dannyayers.com
> ~
> http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/this_weeks_semantic_web/ 

-- 
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, 21 March 2008 23:26:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:56 UTC