Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: What is the nature of HTML 4.0? was RE: Proposal for new RDDLnatures
 Jonathan Borden wrote: > > Eric van der Vlist wrote: > > > > > > I'd like to propose a new "purpose" for RDDL that would be something > > like "alternative representation" (I think that it's slightly different > > than a "normative resource") and new natures that would cover commonly > > used formats (xhtml, html, wml, svg, ... as well as RDF). > > XHTML is easy to assign a nature to, HTML is not so obvious in my mind: > > XHTML > nature: http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml > > (in this case the namespace of the root element, namely 'html' is a good URI > to use as the 'nature' of XHTML.) > > HTML > > should the nature be the URI of its specification? > > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/ > > or should the nature be the well-known URI of its content-type: text/html > -- http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/text/html Would be nice to get a RDDL at this location ;=) ! > or should the nature be something from the DOCTYPE e.g. strict.dtd? > > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd > > normally I don't like to use a specification as a nature, but in this case > the specification directory is also the root directory of the DTDs... I guess it's also depending on how precise we want to be in the description of the nature... Do we want to differentiate HTML4 vs HTML3 ? Do we want to differentiate HTML4 strict vs HTML4 transitional ? > > > > My first motivation is to allow to specify the location of a RDF > > document that would be equivalent to the RDDL (in case its publisher > > would like to provide it). > > this is the motivation behind RDDL itself, to allow the specification of > resources that provide either alternate representations of or schemata that > describe a namespace as well as other resources such as code, stylesheets, > transforms etc. The nature of a RDF document would obviously be "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#", then. What do you think of a new "alternative representation" purpose ? and what URL should we give it ? Thanks Eric > > > > I have also noticed that using XHTML or HTML namespaces as the nature of > > resource seems to be a common practice and I think it should be > > documented. > > the resources you refer to are specifications that are intended to be human > readable. > > > > > There is also a decision to take for these types of document about using > > the URI of their mime types or their namespace URI. > > > > In general when the root namespace URI is adequate to describe the nature of > a resource this is the prefered nature. > > Yet this doesn't always work for example a RDDL document itself has a root > element namespace of http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml but this doesn't alone > describe the nature of a RDDL document. For a RDDL document: > http://www.rddl.org/ best describes its nature (from this URI a user or > program can get many many resources with which to manipulate it). > > When a document isn't XML (and hence can't have a root namespace URI) its > well-known media type URI may serve as the nature. > > -Jonathan -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist Dyomedea http://dyomedea.com http://xmlfr.org http://4xt.org http://ducotede.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
