W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > April to June 2007

RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (#issue-output-formats)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:52:45 -0500
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1178052765.13028.413.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 16:10 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
wrote:
[...]
> 
> Okay, but with regard to providing RDF/XML output, I do not see the word
> "SHOULD" (in the RFC 2119 sense) in the spec.  Is it the WG's intent
> that RDF/XML *SHOULD* be provided, but that an alternate RDF
> serialization may be provided either instead of, or in addition to, the
> RDF/XML output?  Or is it the WG's intent to be completely neutral about
> what RDF serializations might be provided?

The WG encourages the use of RDF/XML by example in the spec,
the primer and test cases documents.

The lack of an explicit rfc2119:should is perhaps an oversight.
I'll have to think about that a bit...

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 20:52:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:43 GMT