Jeremy Carroll wrote: [snip] > Not quite - if you go to the advanced interface for the validator > > http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/uri > > and click at least the first option > http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ARPServlet?URI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fosi.org%2Fprojects%2Fpowder%2Fdr-o1TN.rdf&PARSE=Parse+URI%3A+&TRIPLES_AND_GRAPH=PRINT_TRIPLES&EMBEDDED_RDF=on&NTRIPLES=on > > > there are a load of errors indicating that you've got a striping problem > But you're well on the way. Striping problem sorted (I really ought to be more careful...) > > And in this model it is a very simple choice as to whether to advertise > the fact that the document is RDF/XML or not, by the selection of the > mimetype. With an XML mimetype, then the only clue as to what to do with > this document would be the namespace. With an RDF/XML mimetype you would > be licensing the simple version of the RDF meaning as well (I am > expecting David to give the case against this) Sounds like a decision for next week in Athens. (I'm now suffering from assorted palings in places where they really oughtn't be). If you get a mo, Jeremy, can you please register at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40243/POWDER-F2F-200801/ . Ta. Phil.Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 11:56:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2008 11:56:44 GMT