Ivan Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I actually have, in my implementation, an optional feature that
implements exactly that, but with the attribute name @prefix (same
keyword as the one used in SPARQL or turtle...)
I've implemented this in Cognition now. (It's not in the 0.1-alpha12
down
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
It seems to be that the HTML4+RDFa doc type is useful only if the validator can
be hacked as suggested.
Sure - or if we define some alternate mechanism for mapping prefixes in
the non-XML HTML4 dialect. Such an alternate mapping is anticipated by
the CURIE specific
It seems to be that the HTML4+RDFa doc type is useful only if the validator can
be hacked as suggested.
Jeremy
Shane:
[[
What some of us have been discussing OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE RDFa TASK
FORCE is whether it would be possible to define a profile of RDFa that
was usable in HTML documents
Shane McCarron wrote:
My conclusion about that was that it could be hacked, but it wouldn't
help because attribute names with colons in them are not permitted in
SGML and therefore (probably) not permitted in the DOM and some
parsers could barf were we to try to shoehorn "xmlns:foaf=whatever"
Hello, Shane, all.
On 18-Jul-08, at 12:22 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
I think that you have misunderstood the basic thread here (or we
never said it out loud). No one is proposing updating HTML 4 - that
would be a nightmare.
What some of us have been discussing OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE RDFa
olivier Thereaux wrote:
Do I sense the presence of a chicken-egg issue? The HTML4 spec was not
made to allow RDFa, and so its authoritative schemas don't either.
Could the HTML4 spec be amended to allow the usage of RDFa?
Technically yes, although it would be a bit of a mess, with the
exis
Hi Manu, Karl,
On 18-Jul-08, at 3:08 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
About http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le 18 juil. 2008 à 02:27, Manu Sporny a écrit :
We are a bit helpless to do anything about the W3C Validator since
it's
not in our charter to specify RDFa for HTML4 and expanding our
c
Johannes Koch wrote:
Shane McCarron schrieb:
Johannes Koch wrote:
If you want to include RDFa into HTML, you have to change the HTML
DTD anyway. So why not add a namespace prefixes-URIs mapping attribute?
http://purl.org/dc/terms/ audio
http://purl.org/media/audio#"; ... >
...
This loo
Shane McCarron schrieb:
Johannes Koch wrote:
If you want to include RDFa into HTML, you have to change the HTML DTD
anyway. So why not add a namespace prefixes-URIs mapping attribute?
http://purl.org/dc/terms/ audio
http://purl.org/media/audio#"; ... >
...
This looks like schemaLocation a
Ben Adida schrieb:
Johannes Koch wrote:
If you want to include RDFa into HTML, you have to change the HTML DTD
anyway.
That's not exactly right: you can if you want validation, but you don't
have to.
Well, yes.
And if validation is important to you, while you may need to
change the DTD,
Johannes Koch wrote:
If you want to include RDFa into HTML, you have to change the HTML DTD
anyway.
That's not exactly right: you can if you want validation, but you don't
have to. And if validation is important to you, while you may need to
change the DTD, you won't have to change the heade
Johannes Koch wrote:
If you want to include RDFa into HTML, you have to change the HTML DTD
anyway. So why not add a namespace prefixes-URIs mapping attribute?
http://purl.org/dc/terms/ audio
http://purl.org/media/audio#"; ... >
...
This looks like schemaLocation attribute in XML Schema,
Manu Sporny schrieb:
The issue with the RFC-2731 approach, unless I'm missing something, is
that it doesn't allow multiple scoped prefix definitions. Take the
following example:
http://purl.org/dc/terms/";
xmlns:audio="http://purl.org/media/audio#";
about="#welcome-to-the-
Hi Manu thanks for this good email,
(adding olivier)
About http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le 18 juil. 2008 à 02:27, Manu Sporny a écrit :
We are a bit helpless to do anything about the W3C Validator since
it's
not in our charter to specify RDFa for HTML4 and expanding our charter
i
Toby A Inkster wrote:
My suggestion, and bear in mind that I haven't implemented this yet, is
that we allow something like:
http://purl.org/dc/terms/";>
http://purl.org/media/audio#";>
[...]
Welcome to the Jungle
Hi Toby,
Thanks for chiming in on this. I do wa
On 17 Jul 2008, at 23:00, Manu Sporny wrote:
The issue with the RFC-2731 approach, unless I'm missing something, is
that it doesn't allow multiple scoped prefix definitions. Take the
following example:
http://purl.org/dc/terms/";
xmlns:audio="http://purl.org/media/audio#";
Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>http://purl.org/dc/terms/
>> media http://purl.org/media#
>> audio http://purl.org/media/audio#";
>> about="#a-song" typeof="audio:Recording">
>
> I've suggested it before, but I'll suggest it again. RFC 2731, which was
Hi Toby,
> I've suggested it before, but I'll suggest it again. RFC 2731, which was put
> forward by the Dublin Core crowd many years ago, already offers an
> HTML-compatible method for defining prefixes for metadata terms. RFC 2731
> has been embraced by eRDF.
> The syntax is:
>
>http://purl
Manu Sporny wrote:
http://purl.org/dc/terms/
media http://purl.org/media#
audio http://purl.org/media/audio#";
about="#a-song" typeof="audio:Recording">
I've suggested it before, but I'll suggest it again. RFC 2731, which
was put forward
19 matches
Mail list logo
