Link to external RDF
chris at webarchitects.co.uk
Tue Apr 27 11:07:47 EDT 2004
On Tue 27-Apr-2004 at 10:47:53AM -0400, Bullock, Larry A wrote:
> It looks like you should be able to link to an external rdf
> document (which would lower the html file size).
> It also appears as if the proper format for the link might be is:
> <link rel="meta" type="application/rdf+xml" title="Creative
> Commons License" href="(URL)" />
Yep, that would do the trick :-)
> However, I would like to confirm the following:
> Is the rel really "meta" or can anything else be put in here?
Anything can go there, also multiple things -- it's a space
seperated list, so you could have:
For more info see:
And for a full list of link types that have been used:
> It seems to make sense to use the Copyright one to me.
Yes... but since this is in use already for linking to human
readable copyright pages I think it might not be ideal to start
using it to link to machine readable code...
> Also, the example on
> http://creativecommons.org/technology/metadata/extend#html uses a
> *.rdf filename for the example. Wouldn't it make more sense to
> use a *.xml name (since most modern browsers have some idea what
> to do with that) or is this something that only specific
> applications (rdf reader) should be viewing?
The file extension does make a difference for broken browsers that
can't manage to read the mime type of a resource from it's HTTP
headers (IE). I still serve RDF as application/xml since there are
still application that can't cope with application/rdf+xml (Mozilla
was (still is?) one example of this).
If you want the file to open as a xml document everywhere then .xml
and application/xml is probably safest, if you want to use emerging
standards that are not quite standards yet (I don't think
application/rdf+xml has been approved yet?) then use .rdf and
Chris Croome <chris at webarchitects.co.uk>
web design http://www.webarchitects.co.uk/
web content management http://mkdoc.com/
More information about the cc-metadata