[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sun, 2003-11-02 at 22:28, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> Fair enough, if you're the person creating/writing/serializing RDF. If
> you're the person receiving RDF (specified as RDF, not through an XML
> schema), you just get stuck processing whatever showed up.
>
> My FOAF-in-XML work seemed fine reasonably simple I hit Bill Kearney's
> file, which deliberately used far more of the syntax options than most
> people had chosen.
>
> It might be a good idea to define at least one reduced syntax - property
> elements form sounds reasonable - so that people who don't want to
> accept all the options don't have to.
But each RDF application can choose to be also a XML application and
define which variations are accepted through documentation and
eventually schemas as we've done for RSS 1.0.
In that case, the number of variations are just more possibilities for
the designers of the application which I think is an advantage rather
than an issue.
Eric
--
Tired to type XML tags?
http://wikiml.org
Upcoming schema tutorial:
- Philadelphia (7/12/2003) http://makeashorterlink.com/?V28612FC5
Tutoriel XSLT:
- Paris (25/11/2003) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2C623FC5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
