W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2005

Re: RDDL->RDF (was Re: Draft agenda of 22 February 2005 TAG

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:08:25 +0000
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bzmx3sely.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> writes:

> * Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>>I agree that a RDDL document by construction violates the implied
>>"SHOULD NOT" recommendation here.  I'm not sure I think that
>>recommendation is correct for RDDL, however, in two ways:
> How about sending your feedback to www-html-editor@w3.org? RFC 2854
> makes it currently pretty clear that only XHTML 1.0 documents that
> adhere to the guidelines set forth in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0
> Recommendation may be published using the text/html documents and
> e.g. the W3C Markup Validator consequently only recognizes text/html
> documents as XHTML documents if those use a XHTML 1.0 formal public
> identifier, so documents like http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.html
> cannot possibly pass the W3C Markup Validator. So either the HTML
> Working Group needs to change the rules or such documents should not
> use the text/html media type or not use RDDL as W3C should not
> publish HTML/XHTML documents that cannot pass their own Validator.

I've changed the setup so http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.html is now
served as application/xhtml+xml in response to accept headers which
indicate support for it.

 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 17:08:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:08 UTC