- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:15:55 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
I will look into getting XHTML+RDFa listed. No idea why HTML5 is listed - that's insane. It's not even in last call. With regard to named entities, my recommendation, and the recommendation of the XHTML 2 working group, is that people who plan to serve their documents using the media type application/xhtml+xml, avoid the use of named entities since many user agents do not process these correctly. This will be included in an upcoming update to the XHTML Media Types Note. On 8/16/2010 7:29 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Leif Halvard Silli, Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:22:52 +0200: > > >> I think the RDFa working group should take such things into >> consideration - some options: >> >> * If the browsers actually used out there are not supporting the >> XHTML+RDFa DTD, then it is perhaps smart to recommend to serve such >> documents with standalone="yes" - until there is such support. >> * One should file bugs to make the browsers support these DTDs >> * One possibly is to define DTDs which is more Polyglot Markup >> compatible >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/ >> That is, to somehow offer DTDs without named entity support. >> > I forgot to mention: > > * One should, anyhow and since XHTML+RDFa is a recommended spec, try go > get XHTML+RDFa mentioned on the W3 page which lists recommended > DOCTYPEs. (After all, HTML5 is already there ...) > http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 14:16:35 UTC