Re: Holy grail

Dear all,
I have received no reply to the email below, which I posted to the list 3
days ago. As it contains a question to which I would very much like an
answer (even a very brief one) from someone well-versed in RDFa, I'm still
holding out hope that someone on this mailing list will be willing to look
at it.

If there's any part of my question that's unclear, please could you let me
know so that I can clarify it? Alternatively, if it would be more
appropriate to request help with the matter on a different mailing list,
please could you tell me which?

Many thanks in advance,

Sam

2009/1/5 Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>

> Dear all,
>
> This is my first post to this list, so please be forgiving :)
>
> I would like to be able to write an XHTML+RDFa document that:
>
>    - validates in Oxygen (or other programs using Xerces for validation),
>    and
>    - validates in the W3C validator, and
>    - is capable of containing <style> and <script> elements and other
>    valid XHTML Strict elements, even if they do contain whitespace*, and
>    - is capable of containing (X)HTML entity references such as &hellip;,
>    and
>    - is capable of containing elements from FOAF, DC, etc, within the
>    document, by using those languages' namespaces as appropriate.
>
> As far as I can tell, such a thing is not currently possible, but I hope I
> am wrong!
>
> Please could you let me know whether I am wrong or not, and if I am, please
> could you present me with a sample document that demonstrates the
> possibility of meeting the above criteria?
>
> Many thanks indeed,
>
> Sam
>
> *I'm referring to the problem of the xml:space attribute being set to "(
> preserve )" for the <script> element in
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-script-1.mod, (and I think the <style>
> element's in a similar position) which leaves - if I'm not mistaken -
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-rdfa-1.dtd at odds with
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml-rdfa-1.xsd. See
> http://www.oxygenxml.com/forum/topic2603.html for some discussion of the
> issue.
>