[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Toni Uusitalo scripsit:
> But I was shocked when I started browsing through RDF syntax spec
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030905/
> and came to
> 2.5 Property Attributes
> [snip]
> compared to section 2.4 Empty Property Elements' Example 5
> what's gained with this "abbreviation" but maybe that "the most horrible
> markup usage award" or something?!
The idea is that you can interpret a document as RDF whether it uses
elements or attributes, or indeed child elements for some properties
and attributes for others. The whole point of the syntactic flexibility
is to allow fairly varied kinds of documents to be syntactically valid RDF.
--
"You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan
since I came here. You must have been http://www.reutershealth.com
vaccinated with a phonograph needle." jcowan@reutershealth.com
--Rufus T. Firefly http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
- References:
- RDF syntax
- From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@luukku.com>
|
