Shane,- HTML4 is not in XML, right? I just wonder whether the very DOM oriented processing steps would be appropriate. What seems to be relatively straightforward is an XHTML1.0+RDFa, the question is whether doing the corresponding DTD would be that easy.
- The real issue is, however, HTML5. And that is only where a crystal ball would help:-)
Ivan Shane McCarron wrote:
I would be more than happy to assist in such an effort. However, I personally think we should produce a rec-track profile for RDFa in HTML4 straight away. The current rdfa-syntax document's structure is designed with creating such profiles in mind. The ONLY difference between RDFa in HTML4 and XHTML+RDFa is how prefixes are declared IMHO. If we could agree on a mechanism for that I think we would be ~done.Hausenblas, Michael wrote:Ivan, Michael, I support Ivan's proposal of a separate WG Note. If and when we start this activity I volunteer for taking lead on it ;) Cheers, MichaelBTW, I cc'd Peter, as he showed some interest regarding HTML5 and RDFa a while ago (not sure if you are subscribedto the RDFa mailing list, Peter?). ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hausenblas, MSc. Institute of Information Systems & Information Management JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH http://www.joanneum.at/iis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------Original Message-----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ivan HermanSent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:18 AM To: Michael Bolger Cc: RDFa Subject: Re: Section 1 of the New RDFa Syntax Draft ready for reviews Sigh...:-( As an alternative...This document, as a Rec, defines an XHTML1 variant, ie, is based on XHTML1. I am not sure it would be appropriate to discuss non XHTML1 issues *within the document* (let alone the fact that this would slow down the progress of the document on Rec path).What about planning for a separate WG Note instead that would give information on how these attributes can be used in a non-XHTML1 setting. Such an informative note would be of a great value... (I know that we were playing of defining the attributes without any reference to any host language; that note would be somewhere between the two).I guess the issue about HTML5 is the question of extensibility, ie, of validation. (And I do not think there is a clear view on that in the HTML group either.) *If* this issue is put aside, the RDFa specification could be used with (well, invalid) HTML5 documents when using HTML5's XML serialization. There is nothing, as far as I can see, in the process description of the RDFa attributes that would be dependent on a particular HTML in XML version, it just describes things in terms of a DOM tree operation. I am not sure about the non-XML HTML5, simply because I lack the necessary knowledge on how this is handled with no DOM tree around...Just my 2 cents... Thanks Ivan Michael Bolger wrote:I suggest a proactive approach toward a troubling development concerning IE8 [1] [2], what effect will it be if they fail to support XHTML? Also with HTML5 <!DOCTYPE html> [3] + profile issues. In Section 1 please include a brief , highly informative (relationship) projection about HTML5, I want to see the plan ahead, will all the work to create XHTML+RDFa documents now; survive (etc.). They might not make it through section 2.:) [1]http://realtech.burningbird.net/standards/bobbing-heads-and-the-ie8-meta-tag/[2] http://www.molly.com/2008/01/24/me-ie8-and-microsoft-versioning/ [3] http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-doctype/ [4] http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-shiv/ -interesting "once you create a new DOM element" Thank You Mike-- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
-- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
