[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> writes:
> Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>
> > Does this mean that RDDL2 documents are _not_ XHTML? This seems a
> > backward step to me -- one of the things I _really_ like about RDDL is
> > that when you point a browser at a namespace name which points to an
> > RDDL doc, something sensible happens.
>
> Most certainly not. http://www.rddl.org/RDDL2 proposes XHTML+RDF formats
> (its just a proposal and not yet in final form). I've also shown
> http://www.rddl.org/RDDL2-example.html which is an RDF/XML document (not
> XHTML despite its extension) that *does* display in a browser -- I doubt
> that we'd pick this (pure RDF/XML) format for RDDL2, instead go with a XHTML
> + RDF hybrid.
Thanks, I'm reassured.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
