W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002


From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:56:17 -0800
Message-ID: <3DD28431.1000203@prescod.net>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Dave Beckett wrote:
> ...
> What?  I've just noticed rdf:ID inside the XHTML bit.  That's not
> going to be noticed by an RDF parser.  It only deals with
> <rdf:RDF> <rdf:RDF/> blocks.  

That should not be.

> We haven't spent a lot of time considering mixing these things like
> this.  Sounds more like a web architecture issue.  For the TAG.  Ha ha.

When you embed XHTML in SVG, you don't wrap the whole fragment in an 
<html> element. I could list a variety of common embeddings and you'll 
see that you seldom include the root element. (Schema in WSDL is an 
exception, and does it as RDF does, but HTML in WSDL does not.

The RDF specification should say specifically what an RDF processor is 
looking for in a non-RDF document. I would propose that an 
rdf:Description should be a proper root for an RDF fragment. Similarly, 
a fragment rooted in rdf:About or rdf:ID should be interpreted as an 
abbreviated rdf:Description.

I don't think it needs to be handled by the TAG. Other "how do I embed 
X" issues are figured out just by the people defining the languages.

  Paul Prescod
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 11:57:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:19 UTC