- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:00:13 +0200
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 02:53:56 +0200, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote: > As I have mentioned previously on this list, I am trying to wrap up the > TAG finding on the Self-Describing Web [1], and the major unresolved > question is whether there is a chain of normative specifications, > presumably starting with the media type registration for > application/xhtml+xml [2], that justifies the inference of RDF triples in > an XHTML document that uses RDFa. Hi Noah. The RFC for application/xhtml+xml says With respect to XHTML Modularization [XHTMLMOD] and the existence of XHTML based languages (referred to as XHTML family members) that are not XHTML 1.0 conformant languages, it is possible that 'application/xhtml+xml' may be used to describe some of these documents. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt "RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing" (which uses XHTML Modularization) says: XHTML+RDFa documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]. and further There SHOULD be a @version attribute on the html element with the value "XHTML+RDFa 1.0" http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#docconf (Note that XHTML+RDFa is the first version of XHTML that doesn't require a DTD declaration to identify itself. That notwithstanding, there is also a DTD available, since current browsers use the existence of a DTD declaration to switch itself into Standards Mode). And of course, "RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing" also says it is OK to extract RDF from such documents. I hope this meets your requirements. Best wishes, Steven Pemberton
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 11:06:55 UTC