Re: Subtle namespace difference with RDFa+HTML5 for XML Literals...

[snip]

On Mar 9, 2012, at 17:52 , Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> 
> Have I mentioned that I hate XMLLiterals?

Welcome in the club:-)

> 
>> We can create a separate test for HTML5+RDFa, doing the same but with a different SPARQL. On the other hand, in view of the controversial nature of the xmlns usage in HTML5, I would probably be o.k. to remove it from the HTML5 branch altogether.
> 
> This is really where an HTMLLiteral would make sense, and use that for HTML5 instead of XMLLiteral.

Correct.

> As I understand it, polyglot markup, where xmlns would be appropriate, would only make sense for XHTML5, not HTML5. I'd suggest we remove HTML5 (and HTML4, I suppose) from anything using xml:lang or xmlns (with the exception of the stated use of xml:lang as a namespace-less attribute, which I'd rather see go away from HTML5+RDFa).

See my previous mail. This may remove way too much, we should be careful about this. For the time being I think removing the XML Literal version from HTML{4,5} makes sense.


> If work is ever done on HTMLLiteral (RDF WG?), then we could include this for HTML5, and it would probably be appropriate for XHTML varieties as well).
> 
>> I am not sure about XHTML5. Does the namespace appears for that one? If so, it is fine to have it for that one...
> 
> Being XML, I believe that xmlns is appropriate).
> 

Does XHTML5 use the same namespace URI?

ivan

> Gregg
> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf