[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
vdv@dyomedea.com (Eric van der Vlist) writes:
>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.
If I trusted the RDF community to be as conscientious about this as the
RSS 1.0 group was, I'd be far less paranoid about it.
>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.
Unfortunately, there are too many people out there who take RDF's syntax
liberalism as permission for them to do whatever rather than as an
opportunity for them to customize the syntax so it makes sense in XML
terms.
I don't find Bill Kearney's exuberant use of RDF structures to be
unusual or anomalous. Given his priorities, it makes sense. It just
doesn't mesh well with XML practice.
RDF serialization, just sort of happens, you know?
|
