xml-dev - RE: [xml-dev] RDF was a bully (was Re: [xml-dev] RDF and the new release

RE: [xml-dev] RDF was a bully (was Re: [xml-dev] RDF and the new release

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] RDF was a bully (was Re: [xml-dev] RDF and the new releases)
From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:06:29 +0100
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <023201c28cd7$1f570890$33a1dc40@murphy>


>0.90 was not in any way RDF-compliant.

!

see the cached version of Netscape's RSS) 0.9 spec:
http://www.purplepages.ie/RSS/netscape/rss0.90.html


If you still have any doubts, try copying the sample into the W3C RDF
validator:

http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/

Lovely graph!
Lovely triples!
Valid RDF!

A certain amount of FUD is to be expected from vendors that have staked
their reputation (and probably their dollars) on a different horse, but this
is remarkable. On xml-dev. I'm speechless.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [xml-dev] RDF was a bully (was Re: [xml-dev] RDF and the new releases)
  - From: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>

References:
- Re: [xml-dev] RDF was a bully (was Re: [xml-dev] RDF and the new releases)
  - From: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [xml-dev] To be a standard or not to be a standard
Next by Date: RE: [xml-dev] RDF and the new releases
Previous by thread: Re: [xml-dev] RDF was a bully (was Re: [xml-dev] RDF and the new releases)
Next by thread: Re: [xml-dev] RDF was a bully (was Re: [xml-dev] RDF and the new releases)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread