[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 12:33 PM 10/22/2004, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:
>Looks like we've got two threads going. I never said any of that, but
>interestingly I did agree with you in the other thread that stylesheets have
>a lot of value. All I said was that RDF provides a way to say that resource
>X has relationship Y to resource Z. We don't need DTDs, stylesheets or
>especially new RDF vocabularies to express such a relationship statement.
So, you're suggesting a single RDF syntax to define hypertext
relationships?
I'm confused.
>We do need a usable RDF syntax. Of the various alternatives, I certainly
>won't defend RDF/XML, and I look forward to the results of the current work
>on expressing RDF in XHTML. I guess my ultimate opinion is that we should
>wait and see how that works out before starting any new W3C linking
>standards or trying to rewrite XLink.
Why?
--->Ben
|
