Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Rick Jelliffe" <email@example.com>
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 04:19:50 +1000
> From: Simon St.Laurent
> This will be one of the key questions asked in the next phase of the
> discussion. I consider RDF one of the "W3C recommendations
> regarding XML" and
> don't think this needs to be stated explicitly. Others may feel
> and I'd like to hear suggestions.
I think the idea of proceding in clearly defined stages has more chance of
The first stage should be element types to provide the equivalent of
standard XML markup declarations. The second stage should provide the
equivalent of standard SGML+ExtendedFacilities markup declarations ("&"
connector, inclusions, data attributes, transparent element, value
references). The third stage should be an extended content model system,
suitable for RDF. The fourth stage should be a syntax to declare the syntax
of PI values. The fifth stage should be to add whatever XML-data and RDF
schema have that is not supported.
In parallel to these should be the definition of standard notations for
database types, which has been Tim Bray's pet project.
If there are clearly defined stages then argument about one issue can be
closed before the next is argued about.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)