W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Prefixes fail-safe registry thoughts

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:26:39 -0500
Message-ID: <49AD846F.9070001@intertwingly.net>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Manu Sporny wrote:
> - The current RDFa parsing rules don't change for XHTML. In addition,
>   only @prefix should be used in HTML5/XHTML5. This should make the RDFa
>   TF happy.

There is a big gap between what users consider to be XHTML and what 
browsers consider to be XHTML.  In particular, XHTML 1.0 permits the use 
of the text/html mime type.  Whether it should have done so or not is 
beside the point, and whether it actually would apply in this situation 
is not the point either: the fact is that a number of web standards 
advocates have encouraged this practice, and many follow it today 
without understanding the implications.

The biggest being that no browser treats text/html responses as XML.

We live in a view-source/copy-paste world.  Prefix will quickly show up 
in XHTML and xml:cc has already shown up in HTML.

Consider the target audience of the following page, and the likelihood 
that such an audience will understand the distinction and follow it 


Planet produces output via XSLT that is capable of being served as 
application/xhtml+xml, that being said many people (e.g. planet html5) 
take such output and serve it with a text/html MIME type.  Additionally, 
the page itself is produced by combining data from multiple input 
sources.  Simply put: having two different syntaxes with zero overlap 
makes RDFa impractical for me.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 19:27:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:01 UTC