On 11 March 2010 10:49, Toby Inkster <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:50 +0100, Danny Ayers wrote: >> On 10 March 2010 18:19, Paul Houle <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > <head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; >> xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/";> >> > <meta rel="dcterms:creator" content="Ataru Morobishi"> >> > </head> >> >> ... >> >> > This does bend the XHTML/RDFa standard and also HTML a little (those >> namespace declarations aren't technically valid) >> >> Sorry, but what's not valid about that? > > In XHTML 1.x, @rel is not an allowed attribute for <meta>
Right, I missed that one. , and > @xmlns:dcterms is not an allowed attribute for <head> (though the W3C > validator glosses over the latter invalidity). This is the bit I was getting at from the original statement - if XHTML is XML+namespaces, then surely this is still acceptable (though usually redundant because you'd expect to get namespace declarations on the root element). Also the <meta> element > isn't closed. Right, again I wasn't very observant. > In HTML 4.x, the two attributes above are still disallowed, as is @xmlns > on <head>. For sure. So let me put it another way, how about - <head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/";> <meta scheme="dcterms" name="creator" content="Ataru Morobishi" /> </head> - ok, it's moving away away from RDFa, but valid or not? Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
