[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
And given that RDDL could have RDF and not
XLink in it, RDF is not something that can be ignored
forever. To answer Mike's question, it appears
one will have to cope with it in some contexts.
"4. namespaceDocument-8
1. Action TB 2002/09/24: Revise the RDDL
document to use RDF rather than XLink. Goal
of publication as W3C Note."
from the TAG minutes. Anyway, their replies may
have been designed to open a debate on the immediate
use of RDF.
Actually, the bigger issue is dependency among
specifications and how much this is a choice
of the implementors and how much of it is normative
or architectural. I am a bit surprised that TimBL
resisted MIME types when discussing fragmentIDs.
It has been a fundamental of hyperlinking for as
long as I can remember that the notation processor
of the target defined the semantic of what is
basically an internal address type. We seem to be
patching around faux abstractions.
len
From: Bob DuCharme [mailto:bobdc@snee.com]
At 11/4/02 03:30 PM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>I remember a thread on this list in which
>someone said it was easy to make an XML
>document "RDF friendly" and I asked how.
>John replied with a concise answer and no
>one seemed to object.
That's what's so funny about this current thread--John's reply to you
(http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200208/msg01292.html) was precisely
what inspired the article (and obviously, its title), and the article was
essentially a padded version of that reply, with more examples and
explanation and another guideline or two based on further reflection added.
Simon even responded to that original set of guidelines
(http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200208/msg01293.html), but only had
a problem with the "Eschew mixed content" one at the time.
|
