- From: Stephane Corlosquet <stephane.corlosquet@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:35:21 +0000
- To: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hi, Thanks Christophe, Shane and Toby for your informative answers. > Hmm, I hope it's not getting to philosophical now ;-) I'm sure it's > no longer > related to Stéphane's original question It is still related! More questions now. I assume that the xsd prefix http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema follows the same rule and should be declared: xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" If the W3C validator returns an error when the xsi XML namespace is not well defined, then I would expect the same for the xsd XML namespace. However both xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" validate in XHTML+RDFa. Is that intended? The xsi prefix namespace seems to be hard coded in the validator, as I'm not able to define a different URI for xsi. However it seems there is no such restriction for xsd. regards, Stéphane. Toby A Inkster wrote: > > Christoph Lange wrote: > >> Hmm, I hope it's not getting to philosophical now ;-) I'm sure it's >> no longer >> related to Stéphane's original question, but nevertheless let me ask: >> Wouldn't >> it, in some cases, be reasonable to make XML namespace URIs usable as >> vocabulary URIs? What URI would, e.g., the xhtml:h1 element have if you >> wanted to talk about it in RDF like … >> >> xhtml:h1 >> a :XHTMLElement ; >> :content :text ; >> ... . > > Actually I had a very similar need. The choice was between using the > XHTML namespace as-is, which would result in funny looking URIs like > <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmlh1>; tacking an extra '#' on to the XHTML > namespace; or defining my own URIs for XHTML elements. > > In the end, I opted for the third solution: > > http://buzzword.org.uk/rdf/xhtml-elements# > > The ultimate point of it being: > > http://buzzword.org.uk/rdf/sections# >
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 13:36:38 UTC