- From: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:19:00 +0000
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:51:17PM +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
> Dave,
>
> You made a last call comment "WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123: RDF/XML
> with HTML and XHTML" captured in
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#hodder-01
>
> The RDFCore WG has resolved
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0068.html
>
> to accept this comment.
Dave,
Thank you. Subject to agreement between the HTML and RDF Core WGs, this
decision is acceptable to me. Your proposed example of:
<link rel="alternate" type="application/rdf+xml" title="RDF Version"
href="doc.rdf" />
... looks good.
I should state I have a /slight/ preference for using 'rel="Meta"'
instead, though. As it stands, software agents can identify the link as
being to an RDF/XML file from the 'type' attribute; with 'rel="Meta"',
an agent could group together a disparate range of links to metadata
documents, be they RDF/XML, N-Triples, or a format yet to be conceived,
without needing intrinsic knowledge of the media types concerned.
<snip/>
> 3. We note further that there is ongoing coordination work between the
> HTML and RDF Core WGs on issues of embedding RDF in HTML.
For what it's worth, the 4th Working Draft of XHTML 2.0[1] defines the
'Meta' LinkType as follows:
Meta
Refers to a document that provides metadata, for instance in
RDF, about the current document.
I note, of course, that WDs are evolving documents; it's possible it
could be dropped from the next draft, and/or a different approach could
be put forward.
Thanks again,
Dave
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xhtml2-20030131/abstraction.html#dt_LinkTypes
Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 19:12:36 UTC