- 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