Re: ERT XHTML Module for the WAI

Hi Len,

> So if we wind up using RDF we'll want to suggest to the the RDF
> and/or XHTML groups that include RDF in XHTML., so we can
> make as much as possible what we need general use "business as usual".

I think PF needs to lobby to have RDF included to some extent (probably the
DC, RSS, and FOAF namspaces) in XHTML 2.0, but it is already too late for
XHTML 1.1 To add it to XHTML 1.1, someone is going to have to write a module
for it.
If not, we can link to it using either WL's suggestion of <head
profile=[...]"> or CMcCN's suggestion of <meta> elements (see RDF IG).
All of this is only *if* (and it's a big if) you want to use RDF for ADL.
Daniel seemed to support XML Schemas/RDF/RDF Schemas quite heavily, so it
may be so. Pesonally I don't mind too much, but note that it is easier for
me to working in XML/RDF/XHTML than anything else...

> And since like I say the RDF folks already claim it can be used in
> HTML I expect they'll want to do that.  What do you think?

The "RDF folk" are having problems getting RDF and XHTML together. Dan
Connolly had a fair bit of success, as have the RSS and DC people, but along
with myself there isn't too many people working on it.
Most RDF folk probably don't know you can't include RDF into HTML at the
moment. Although there are many hacks around that for now I'd rather see
them eliminated eventually! Using RDF in XHTML is a *very* good idea.

It's also useful from the SW/RDF point of view. Quoth DanC:-
[[[
I believe that one of the best ways to transition into RDF, if not a
long-term deployment strategy for RDF, is to manage the
information in human-consumable form (XHTML) annotated with just enough info
to extract the RDF statements that the human info is intended to convey. In
other words: using a relational database or some sort of native RDF data
store, and spitting out HTML dynamically, is a lot of infrastructure to
operate and probably not worth it for lots of interesting cases.
We all know that we have to produce a human-readable version of the thing...
why not use that as the primary source?
]]] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Mar/0103.html

> By the way,  are there any current links to the definition of m12n?  It
> seems to be used as a synonym for XHTML modularization.

m12n is short for modularization because of the number of letters it
contains. m(12 letters)n. m12n = modularization. It's just quicker to type.
Same with i18n (internationalization)!
The abbreviation m12n is not a "standard" as such, but everyone uses it
becase it's so much easier to type! I think i18n might be a standard means
of expression/abbreviation...

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

Received on Sunday, 26 November 2000 11:06:05 UTC