| SitePoint Sponsor |
I started off with this message exchange on the W3C Public rdf-in-xhtml Mailing List in May 2008.
Now comes the (draft) XHTML Media Types - Second Edition - W3C Working Group Note, 16 January 2009 -- Serving the Most Appropriate Content to Multiple User Agents from a Single Document Source -- which supercedes (?) the oft quoted and much referenced XHTML Media Types - W3C Note 1 August 2002.
I hope many of you will provide comments, insights and thoughts on this subject.
James
Last edited by jamesicus; Jan 26, 2009 at 18:54. Reason: corrected info
Just remember that this is a Note, which is informative, not normative. In other words, it carries no official 'weight' whatsoever. It's like an 'oh, by the way' document.
Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane
Yes that is right. However, it seems to me that several prominent denizens of the WWW Web Authoring community are (ominously) giving it more weight than that.Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo
Just remember that this is a Note, which is informative, not normative. In other words, it carries no official 'weight' whatsoever. It's like an 'oh, by the way' document.
James
W3C RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing - Conformance Requirements specifies that XHTML+RDFa documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" (no XHTML 1.0 appendix C equivocation here) as defined in RFC3236. However, the W3C is labeling some of their own XHTML+RDFa documents with the Internet Media Type "text/html" as defined in RFC2854.
I wish the W3C wouldn't do things like that -- it makes life so hard for standards compliance devotees.
James
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks