Re: Issue faq-html-compliance

I support Dave's recommendation to use links to associate RDF
statements with XHTML documents.

Patrick


On 2002-06-13 0:00, "ext Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

> This email closes ACTION 2002-06-07#5
> 
> Sean B. Palmer posted the following feedback on the www-rdf-comments
> list, announced in
> Input on faq-html-compliance
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0170.html
> and a copy archived at:
> RDF in HTML: Approaches
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jun/att-0002/01-index
> 
> In order to create a way to embed RDF in XHTML, the way that the
> MathML folks did it was to create an all new modular MathML+XHTML DTD
> but I don't see this as something we should do, since RDF isn't so
> directed at user markup.
> 
> Sean came to a couple of tentative conclusions on ways to link and
> embed; the former using the (x)html <link> element, and the latter
> embedding an encoded RDF/XML blob in the <script> element with
> a mime type.
> 
> The latter seems rather awful and I don't propose we use it, which
> unfortunately rules out an embedded RDF/XML in XHTML, with
> validation.  Of course, without validation, it works OK as long as
> the attribute-form of RDF/XML is used.
> 
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> We recommend using <link>[1][3] in the <head> of the (x)html which is an
> approach that Dublin Core has been using for several years on its web
> site and works ok.  In particular we should say to use the <link> type
> attribute with the value of "application/rdf+xml".
> 
> With respect to link types[2][4], here the value of the rel attribute.
> That may be application dependent.  Dublin Core has used and
> recommended rel="meta", which is allowed since [2] notes:
> 
> "Authors may wish to define additional link types not described in
> this specification. If they do so, they should use a profile to
> cite the conventions used to define the link types. Please see the
> profile attribute of the HEAD element for more details."
> 
> but that is optional since it is a _should_ not a _must_.
> I don't think <head profile=".."> would be expected by most
> applications.
> 
> However [4] doesn't mention other allowed types!
> 
> I attach an example of using this.
> 
> ---
> 
> I'm open to suggestions to how much emphasis to use here on
> suggesting / requiring / recommending an approach here.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> [1] <link> in HTML 4.01
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-LINK
> 
> [2] HTML 4.01 link types
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links
> 
> [3] XHTML Modularization - 5.19 Link Module
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_linkmodule
> 
> [4] XHTML Modularization - LinkTypes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstraction.html#dt_LinkTypes
> 
> 
> Content

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2002 04:29:08 UTC