- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:00:07 +0100
- To: public-rdfa@w3.org
With regard, to ]] XHTML+RDFa 1.1 - Second Edition Support for RDFa via XHTML Modularization W3C Recommendation 22 August 2013 [[ it refers, as a normative reference, to [XML-NAMES11] (XML namespaces version 1.1): http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-xhtml-rdfa-20130822/#document-conformance However, XML-Names11, also known as ”Namespaces in XML 1.1 (Second Edition)”, which states about itself that “This specification applies to XML 1.1 documents”: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#Conformance Without doubt, you meant xml-names, second editiion - also known as “Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Second Edition)“: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816/ Which is also what ”XHTML™ 1.1 - Module-based XHTML - Second Edition” refers to: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/references.html#a_refs Btw, I see that XHTML in RDFa (aka version 1.0) referred to namespaces in XML version, first edition. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014/#a_references So may be you wanted to make sure, version 1.1, that you picked Namespaces in XML 1.0, second edition, but picked Namespaces in XML 1.1, second edition, instead … Btw, with XML 1.0 5th edition, Namespaces in XML 1.0 and in XML 1.1 should be the same, I think, with regard to which characters that are permitted. Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 01:00:37 UTC