- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:55:07 -0400
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Shane McCarron wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: >> ... >> Given this state, and the evident proclivity of users to copy and >> paste markup into such documents, I would think that it would be a >> rather good idea for there to be a subset of RDFa (and by subset, I >> mean things like disallowing the use of two prefixes which differ only >> in case in the same scope of the same document) which can be processed >> either as XHTML or HTML and produce the same triples. >> >> Perhaps there can be different rules for XHTML served as >> application/xhtml+xml, or HTML with a non-XHTML doctype. > > I would almost rather try to harmonize the rules between XHTML and HTML > if that's possible. For example, by declaring that in HTML and XHTML > family documents CURIE prefixes are case-insensitive. This would be a > significant change from the current recommendation, but I think it is > unlikely that this change would actually adversely effect the triples > generated by any existing pages. If a change like this needs to be > made, obviously it should be made sooner than later. I was hoping you would say that. :-) The original question is "do you personally have a requirement that a document with embedded RDFa always emit the same triples, regardless of its progeny?". It is hard to categorically defend a yes answer to that question, but on the far narrower question of how to deal with things that have a doctype of xhtml which are served as text/html, the answer is much easier to defend. - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 16:59:46 UTC