Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Murray Altheim wrote:
> >
> > ... The *only* way I can imagine (that wouldn't involve
> > an act of Congress) would be to have CDATA section nodes containing RDF be
> > notation-marked as RDF, such that they get passed off to an RDF schema
> > processor for *appropriate* processing. This isn't technically all that
> > difficult, but it's religiously and politically unlikely. IMO.
> This solution bothers me as RDF is well formed XML. You loose the ability to
> easily use common XML software techniques such as SAX and XSLT. Like it or
> not, notations have no traction in the XML community and hence software
> support doesn't exist.

I recognize this. 
> What is wrong with the approach of including <rdf:RDF> elements within XHTML
> defined by an XML Schema module for RDF?

I hope I answered this in more detail in a message I just sent off. There's
no definition in XML that allows for well-formed content *within* valid
content. Either the entire document is valid or its not. DTDs cannot deal
with only part of the content being checked. I'm not even sure if XML
Schema can do this. If so, you *could* use the XML Schema for XHTML being
developed within the HTML WG to validate the XHTML, and some sort of 
module to allow for the RDF to be validated. But my understanding is that
even XML Schema can't validate generic RDF. I keep maintaining that RDF
is too low a level a syntax to be validated by any type of schema, since
it's not really an application but more a higher level grammar than
XML than it is really a "markup language".


Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey     <mailto:altheim&#64;>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025

      the wood louse sits on a splinter and sings to the rising sap
      ain't it awful how winter lingers in springtimes lap -- archy

Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2001 20:22:34 UTC