- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:33:22 -0400
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, "Stuart Williams" <skw@hp.com>, "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>, "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
Hi Noah, On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:32 PM, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Clearly, the RFC allows for use of the media type with XHTML M12N content, > insofar as it says that it's "possible" that the media type "may be used > to describe >some< of these documents". What's not clear to me is whether > the appearance of the media type is thus sufficient to trigger formal > appeal to the M12N specification for interpreting the content. I'm not too familiar with RDFa beyond some examples I've seen, but I don't see how the use of XHTML M12N relates to self-description. From my POV, M12N is just an authoring tool, and so any XHTML document using an extension has the same meaning whether that extension was defined with M12N or not. Mark.
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 05:33:56 UTC