Re: RDFa and its relationship to XHTML

Karl Dubost wrote:
>
> Le 06-06-09 à 07:29, Elias Torres a écrit :
>> Is this it?
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#h-6.12
>>
>> If so, http://svn.rdflib.net/trunk/ revision *784* has a fix for those
>> (and so does my website http://torrez.us/rdfa).
>
> Yes this is it. Just be careful to the case sensitivity
> [[[
> These link types are case-insensitive, i.e., "Alternate" has the same
> meaning as "alternate".
> ]]]

Thanks. I've added to the latest version, but when I convert to
xhtml:stylesheet should I add a #?

http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#stylesheet

>
> And as the discussion we had in this thread about validity, I was
> browsing the test files,
>
> For example this is not valid XHTML 1.0
> http://svn.rdflib.net/trunk/test/rdfa/000001.htm
>
>

No surprise there, I'm sure. That's been the crux of the discussion for
 a while now. I'm just sitting here tight waiting for it to be resolved.
 ;)

-Elias

Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 01:03:03 UTC