Lists Home |
Date Index |
>> I can understand the need for an <rdf:RDF> wall around embedded
>RDF in the
>> current syntax (to keep its Gothic structure out of sight). If
>> RDF was restricted to (decapitated) one-layer statements, I reckon an
>> <rdf:D> ha-ha is adequate.
>Actually, rdf:RDF isn't required, and Reuters Health doesn't use it.
Fair enough. I suppose I was overlaying my own (non-standard)
The recommendation of WG to eschew embedding in XHTML and link in the RDF
instead (see Dave Becketts comments at , Sean Palmer's discussion of
approaches to embedding at ), yet the obvious benefit of being able to
embed would suggest that this is an issue that is likely to keep
I must say btw that the Reuters Health data is an excellent example of how
RDF/XML needn't be ugly.