|
|
Re: [xml-dev] The perils of P18S (was Re: [xml-dev] Why RDF is hard )
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 18/11/2002 14:08:32 GMT Standard Time, mc@xegesis.org writes:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:39:03 -0500, Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
wrote:
> The W3C (via QNames, URIs uber alles, and now RDDL/RDF) and various
> people (Liam Quin, for instance) who seem to suggest on a regular basis
> that adding RDF to the core of XML would improve it.
This really is the nub of the issue. Anyone wondering why people involved
in the other
parts of the W3C (or subject to its whims as part of their day jobs, as is
Simon)
often have a knee-jerk, testy, even irrational reaction to various
aspects of RDF need look no further. Insistence on political correctness
-- or P18S, it really needs one of these contractions all its own ;-) --
elicits a
strongly cynical reaction whereever it is imposed, and the Web is no
different.
Whether the P18S of RDF is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing in the long run,
it is an irritation to many in the short run. My suggestion (which I'm
sure you're all equally irritated by hearing it repeated ad nauseum) is to
let RDF earn its
place in the meme pool by solving real problems better than the
alternatives.
That's how TCP/IP, URL/HTTP/HTML, XML, etc. became the monster
hits that they have ... in the former cases, their success came about
IN SPITE OF their lack of P18S by the standards of the time.
Mike,
In designating this process P18S aren't you perhaps making an unwarranted assumption about whitespace handling? :)
Some of us might consider P19S an altogether superior approach! :)
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|