- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 05:45:16 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- cc: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
In XML the namespaces specification is designed to allow mixing two or more varieties of XML in one dosument. Amaya does this to include SVG and MathML directly in XHTML documents - for example see http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1116-oz/all.htm The RDF syntax was designed in part so that if this was done, and teh results used on older, HTML-only browers, the HTML content would still be presented as expected. DTD's don't make this so easy - one of the reasons why I favour schemas instead (another is that they actually provide machine-readable information about content, as well as human readable information). cheers CHarles On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Sean B. Palmer wrote: 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. -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia September - November 2000: W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 27 November 2000 05:45:18 UTC