Mime type, was: Re: [rdfweb-dev] seeAlso

Jim Ley jim at jibbering.com
Tue Aug 12 09:32:54 UTC 2003

"Dan Brickley" <danbri at w3.org>
> > Order makes no difference! see my other post for a suggestion.  and I
> > we need */* as I expect some of RDF would be coming along in new
> > experimental mime-types, we may want to specifically reject text/html
> > q=0 values, to prevent us getting that.
> Tricky... there's work underway to make it possible to embed RDF within
> HTML documents while still having the HTML portion be XML schema
> validatable, see
> We'd probably want to scoop out such RDF. Hmm this is tangled with the
> debate happening elsewhere about appropriate content-type to send XHTML

That's rdf in XHTML, RDF in html is a completely different ball-game, and
such XHTML would have to be served as application/xhtml+xml, I can't see
those techniques meeting Appendix C from the discussion, but yes, I only
said we may want to reject, I certainly would as it will hopefully reduce
the amount of html docs that we attempt to parse (which was about 10% last
time I looked.)  however it may not yet be sensible.


More information about the foaf-dev mailing list