On 01/10/06, Ralph Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:17:32PM +0200, Danny Ayers wrote:
> Not always - the following is valid (though rather unusual!) RDF/XML :
>
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
> <body>
> <p><blockquote>Mixup</blockquote></p>
> </body>
> </html>
I wonder if that's a bug, since there's not actually any RDF there, and
this would detect as xhtml by a reader.
Not a bug, it's spec-valid RDF (though pretty meaningless), but invalid XHTML.
> Yep. Hmm, if there was a neat way to provide the media (mime) type it
> could also be useful for non-XML docs as well. Otherwise an easy
> workaround for RDF might be to specify that the root element for RDF
> docs must be <rdf:RDF
> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"; /> (as was the
> case in the pre-2004 RDF specs).
Seems reasonable for this application. I guess I've not read the more
recent specs.
Yeah, a whole raft of the things in 2004, varying degrees of
(in)comprehensibility...
http://www.w3.org/RDF/
They include a Primer, but the stuff at http://www.rdfabout.com/ is a
bit more approachable (especially the 30 second intro).
Isn't there a connotation of the RDF describing the xml
document it's embedded in if it's not the root element?
The usual way to refer to the current doc (on the Web) is
rdf:about="", I think I'd better ask around a bit on this, it might
not be quite so straightforward when you've got ((data block)(metadata
block)).
Cheers,
Danny,
--
http://dannyayers.com
_______________________________________________
Flac-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
