You're kidding, right?
RDF isn't as widespread as it could be (it could be used in Facebook and Wikipedia but isn't, for example).
(And I haven't even heard of FOAF.)
I wouldn't call these huge successes.
Yea, the so-called XHTML5 that will be finally supported in IE9, BTW.
It turns out that's a really bad idea on the Web.
Further reading: http://diveintohtml5.org/past.html
Big names that I know of that use/publish RDF:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/07/the_world_cup...
http://wiki.freebase.com/wiki/RDF
http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2009/10/linked-data-at-the-n...
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/SciVerse-Hub-Appl...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evri
[EDIT] Don't forget DBpedia and FreeBase (which uses RDF heavily) is used heavily by PowerSet which subsequently was bought by Microsoft which now (as far as I know) is used heavily for Bing.
XHTML was a failure. Everyone stuck with HTML4 and advantages of XHTML haven't materialised. I question the whole reasoning behind trying to retrofit HTML into XML.
The "semantic web" has never delivered on its promises, despite hanging around like a bad smell. Very few sites use RDF (or FOAF). The real-world problems that RDF was supposed to solve are, in practice, solved by simple JSON-based Web APIs.
The only XML-based web technology to become a success is RSS.