Re: Signing Document and PICS

Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> Russell O'Connor <> wrote:
> > The question was to name one thing worse about XHTML 1.0 than HTML 4.0.
> > The answer to that is that more illegal documents are valid in
> > XHTML than in HTML 4.0.  There is no disputing this.
> Err, XHTML clearly states:
> <q cite="">

Right, ``a'' elements can't be nested in a legal XHTML, but a validator
cannot enforce this.  In HTML 4.0 or ISO-HTML, a validator does enforce
this condition.  SGML is more expressive than XML, so (in this respect)
HTML 4.0 is better than XHTML.

> Well, as I've already shown it can be embedded in HTML using HTML LINK. If
> you want to do it in HTTP, one convention is to use content negotiation, and
> send the set of RDF metadata to systems that can accept it. This practice is
> documented in the W3C Note:

That's interesting.

I'm thinking I should start my adding

<LINK rev=signs href="...sig"> and then adding a webpage of a profile
describing the semantics the the "signs" relation in my profile

Then I can see about improving this, because it would clearly be better if
I use common semantics, rather than making my own.

Do people agree that the above is an acceptable solution, although perhaps
not the best solution?  Or is there something I don't get.

- -- 
Russell O'Connor                 
``Paradoxically, a refusal to `put a monetary value on life' means that
life is often undervalued.'' -- Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (SunOS)
Comment: For info see


Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 17:06:07 UTC