- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 13:31:47 +0300
- To: ext Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, WWW TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2002-04-08 9:09, "ext Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: > Williams, Stuart wrote: > >> At last week's TAG telcon I took an action to explore the use of an RDF >> based approach for embedding machine readable information on RDDL documents >> instead of Xlink. > > ... in fact the RDF block could also > be in the HTML header and this would work fine. This would, I think, be the cleanest approach, though whether the RDF is all in one place in the header or interleaved with the XHTML prose, I think it is good if the root document model is XHTML with the RDF embedded within it rather than RDF with XHTML embedded as RDF parseType="Literal". The reason for this is quite practical. While we will hope for rich, machine accessible information in namespace documents (and elsewhere), there will be lots of folks who will be able to create XHTML only namespace documents but not the RDF (or XLink) knowledge intended for machines, and thus the foundation of the namespace document markup should be XHTML. Also, browsers will more easily deal with XHTML instances with RDF in the header than RDF instances with embedded XHTML, which requires configuring the browsers to recognize the RDF instances as displayable as XHTML, etc. Thus, putting the RDF in the XHTML header seems the optimal way to go. It's also consistent with the role of the header as a container for machine-relevant information as opposed to content. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 8 April 2002 06:29:15 UTC