OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)

[ 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,



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS