W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2008

Re: Treatment of RDFa in TAG Finding on Self-describing Web and feed back on RDFa in XHTML1.1

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:02:49 +0200
Message-ID: <48E5FBD9.1070605@gmx.de>
To: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>
CC: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Dean Edridge wrote:
> Hello
> I have some feedback on the RDFa in XHTML1.1 specification.
> I request that having a doctype for RDFa in XHTML1.1 documents become a 
> MUST (compulsory), and not optional. As most people send their XHTML 
> documents as text/html [1], a doctype will be needed to trigger 
> standards mode, plus the lack of a doctype creates a conflict with the 
> XHTML variant of HTML5.
> ...

That doesn't compute over here :-)

If XHTML is sent with a text/html mime type, then what's sent (according 
to the specs) *is* HTML (potentially with syntax errors).

In which case a doctype for HTML+RDFa is needed (with which I agree).

 > ...
> I'm sorry, but that's not correct. The XHTML variant of the HTML5 specification, which has been around for four years now, can only be sent with a XML mime type such as application/xhtml+xml or application/xml), so therefore does not need to have a doctype (as the mime type triggers standards mode) or a DTD (although there is an optional one). It is identified by the root namespace and the mime type (application/xhtml+xml or application/xml) [4] And it is the mime type, namespace and lack of a doctype that allow user-agents and validators to identify a web page as being the XHTML variant of HTML5. Having two documents that look the same but are developed by different working groups may cause problems for people such as Olivier Thereaux that are going to need to configure the W3C_Validator to identify and validate these web pages. So I think a doctype for RDFa in XHTML1.1 should be a MUST. 

The same could be said about the XHTML version of HTML5, or the fact 
that both (currently) use the same XML namespace. That's the problem 
that I think needs to be resolved; one way or another. Distinguishing 
XML vocabularies by the presence or absence of a doctype isn't going to 
be robust (for instance, XSLT has no access to it).

 > ...

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 11:03:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:25 UTC