- From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:56:54 +0300
- To: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>, <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <E657D8576967CF448D6AF22CB42DD2690FF301@ermhs.athens.brokersystems.gr>
Consider the following. Instead of <meta name="dc.author" content="some string"/> use <meta name="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/author" content="some string"/> of course, we have the mapping of QNames to URIs issue (which generally remains unsolved). Cheers, Manos -----Original Message----- From: Manos Batsis Sent: Wed 8/14/2002 12:45 AM To: Art.Barstow@nokia.com; www-html@w3.org Cc: Subject: RE: XHTML 2.0 - no interest in RDF/XML? Indeed, the most importand issue XHTML faces against the Semantic Web. The current draft introduces no evolution from XHTML 1.0 (or HTML for that matter). More specifically, although the <meta> element is good for simple key-value pairs and assumes that the document is the subject (per RDF terms), is unable to provide the syntax layer to include metadata from any namespace unless QNames are used. I can fully understand the reason behind this omission, since the XHTML standard simply cannot cover validation issues, namelly an infinite set of namespaces that can possibly be used in RDF like documents or document fragments. Note that W3C has not presented an XML Schema for the RDF serialization in XML either, much for the same reason. So, I guess that the WG leaves this to authors, who can use XHTML modularization to solve this. I would ask for the WG to formally introduce a section in the <head> element where validation is skipped (using the corresponding XML Schema construct), to urge authors in the use of full powered RDF fragments. What must mainly be avoided is examples like: <meta name="dc.author" content="foo"/> One can object with all the above using the <link rel="meta"> as an argument, but this functionality was never formally documented in any (X)HTML draft, (something the current WG should also consider). Besides, authors must have the ability to embed full powered metadata in their web pages. Of course, I would be happy to hear better ideas than this one. Kindest regards, Manos -----Original Message----- From: Art.Barstow@nokia.com [mailto:Art.Barstow@nokia.com] Sent: Tue 8/13/2002 10:51 PM To: www-html@w3.org Cc: Subject: XHTML 2.0 - no interest in RDF/XML? Given the W3C's huge investment in the RDF metadata framework, why does the Metainformation Module in the 2002-08-05 WD of XHTML 2.0 not accommodate (or at least mention) the XML serialization of RDF?
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 17:56:10 UTC