- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 13:32:03 +0100
- To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Murray Altheim" <altheim@eng.sun.com>, "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Joshua wrote:- > the XHTML DTD certainly does not provide assurances > that the script contained in a <script>..</script> block is > valid, They're not in XML, so it doesn't have to. XHTML is validated as XML, and so is RDF. If you include RDF in XHTML, then you have to validate the whole lot as XML. Murray has already pointed out why validation is essential, and indeed "conforming to published grammars" is actually an accessibility checkpoint [1], listed in WCAG 1.0 [2]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-use-w3c [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 16 April 2001 08:29:57 UTC