On 30/09/06, Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org> wrote:> On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 12:21:53PM +0200, Danny Ayers wrote: > > > Basically I'd like to embed arbitrary (meta)data in flac files. > > I agree it would be best to define a new block type for RDF > metadata, or probably better for random attached XML data,That sounds reasonable, but... and> let the xml parser figure out what schema it's using. It's easy > to recognize RDF-in-XMLNot 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> http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ARPServlet?URI=http%3A%2F%2Fdannyayers.com%2Fcode%2Fminimal-xhtml.html&PARSE=Parse+URI%3A+&TRIPLES_AND_GRAPH=PRINT_TRIPLES&FORMAT=PNG_EMBED&EMBEDDED_RDF=on&ANON_NODES_EMPTY=on&NODE_COLOR=Black&NODE_TEXT_COLOR=Blue&EDGE_COLOR=Darkgreen&EDGE_TEXT_COLOR=Red&FONT_SIZE=10&ORIENTATION=LR#graph but retains flexibility for people to> add other XML encoded metadata in the future.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). Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
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.> 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. Isn't there a connotation of the RDF describing the xml document it's embedded in if it's not the root element? -r
On 01/10/06, Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org> 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