[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>* Simon St Laurent
>|
>| I worry about RDF (and URIs generally) poisoning XML,
>
I don't agree that RDF is contaminating XML; the two technologies simply
have different semantics and processing - i.e. for URIs (consider
fragment identifiers for example; RDF is incapable of preserving the
partition) and some people may be using namespaces in RDF to denote or
point to schemas/vocabularies.
>How would it do that? As far as I can tell the two are entirely
>separate, except that one of the RDF syntaxes is based on XML.
>
>| [...] So far, I think XHTML has chosen carefully and avoided the
>| really toxic bits.
>
.. while it does seem to handle URIs in a more reasonable way, mostly to
it's retreive-oriented semantics (apart from namespaces).
>Quite possibly. Personally, I would have been happier if they had not
>only changed frames, but also fixed the most broken aspects of them.
>Pages should ask to be wrapped in framesets, not the other way around.
>
I dissagree. Inline inclusion of documents cannot be replaced by
framesets and iframes provide a much better and predictable interface to
ECMAScript and URLs pointing to e.g. images, than XInclude would ever will.
Kindest regards,
Manos
|
