- From: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:37:13 +0200
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- CC: www-math@w3.org
On 2011-10-27 16:54, David Carlisle wrote: > However it would be pretty odd to use xhtml-namespaced attributes in an > xhtml context anyway so I don't think we should ask for that. On the elements from the XHTML namespace (or, on the corresponding elements in the non-XML serialization of HTML) it is, of course, not necessary to use the xhtml:-namespaced variant of the RDFa attributes. XHTML and RDFa have been _designed_ in a way that XHTML attributes and RDFa attributes don't clash. If they should ever clash in future versions of XHTML or RDFa, that wouldn't be our problem anyway. But as you said that … > xlink: is only allowed because of legacy usage (and only in "foreign > content" ie mathml or svg) … would xhtml:-namespaced attributes be allowed in that "foreign content"? > The request to allow namespaced attributes was (as far as I > understand it) to allow rdfa to be used with other unrelated markup > languages that might otherwise have clashing attribute names. The reason why I mentioned this is that Michael once, correctly, stated, that RDFa 1.1 is flawed by design, as long as it both * claims to be ready for integration into any XML host language and * mandates about 10 non-namespaced attributes to be offered by the host language and that therefore it would never seem eligible for integration into MathML as a host language, as MathML attributes don't _currently_ clash with RDFa, but as we'd like to retain the freedom to introduce such attributes in MathML 4. _That_ bug in RDFa has now been fixed; that was the point of my mail. Now please don't start arguing that we'd never want MathML to be annotated with RDFa anyway, when there is Content MathML and <annotation-xml>. There is so far no best practice for RDF-compatible annotations to MathML, which one might indeed want when annotating formulae with arbitrary non-mathematical information for which there happens to be a suitable RDF vocabulary. Or maybe there is a best practice, which I am hereby happy to suggest; please open the PDF at http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/new-submission-ontologies-and-languages-representing-mathematical-knowledge-semantic-web and jump to the first occurrence of "definitionURL". Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs University Bremen http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701 Workshop: Ontologies come of Age in the Semantic Web (OCAS) October 24 at the Intl. Semantic Web Conference, Bonn, Germany http://ocas.mywikipaper.org
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2011 20:44:55 UTC