- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:48:45 +0100
- To: "'Sean B. Palmer'" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Cc: WWW TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Hi Sean, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean B. Palmer [mailto:sean@mysterylights.com] > Sent: 08 April 2002 11:44 > To: Patrick Stickler > Cc: ext Tim Bray; WWW TAG > Subject: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] RDF and RDDL > > > > Thus, putting the RDF in the XHTML header seems the > > optimal way to go. > > As the author of many, many, RDF-in-XHTML proposals, Do you have any particular favorites you could point me at. > I submit > that this apporach is distasteful because it makes validation > basically impossible. Furthermore, AFAIK it is XHTML and XHTML > alone that can decide the meaning of any externally namespaced > material embedded within it, and so changes may need to be made > to the XHTML specification. Also, I can see these documents being > served as text/html, which would raise many issues (such as the > fact that RDF IDs would be useless according to the MIME type > draft). > > OTOH, what are namespaces for if not to embed bits of languages > in other languages? There is also an approach that can help one > get round the validation problem:- > > * Remove the parts that you can't validate, using XSLT. > * Validate the remainder. > > But the issue of language mixing is long and complicated: how > would one specify in the document that you have you apply a > transformation first before you validate it? I assume one would > use a PI for that: "if you're a validator, remove this junk; if > not, parse and process this junk!". I smell a hack. ... or maybe just unwarranted optimism about the ease with which XML vocabularies can be mixed ;-). > > -- > Kindest Regards, > Sean B. Palmer > @prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> . > :Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> . Thanks, Stuart
Received on Monday, 8 April 2002 08:49:29 UTC