W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Exciting changes at Data.Southampton.ac.uk!

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 09:27:33 +0000
To: "richard@cyganiak.de" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "me@iandavis.com" <me@iandavis.com>
CC: Christopher Gutteridge <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|a97f71fc62845f17b7adf174fe8ca504n30ARw02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|44BAC99B-0C7F-43A1-8F72-3486B0D21DA8@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Yes, RTF will be much better than Word - I will only need to change a D to a T.

----- Reply message -----
From: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>
To: "Ian Davis" <me@iandavis.com>
Cc: "Christopher Gutteridge" <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "<public-lod@w3.org>" <public-lod@w3.org>
Subject: Exciting changes at Data.Southampton.ac.uk!
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 09:31


On 1 Apr 2011, at 13:42, Ian Davis wrote:
> I really don't see why I should have to reengineer my entire toolchain simply to consume your proprietary format. It is well known that the standard for information interchange is the Microsoft Word 97 document format which is easily read by every popular computing package.

M$ Word readily available? You're clearly not living in the real world and are trying to push an overly complicated solution. There is a far superior, more interoperable, and more widely supported standard that would make an infinitely better replacement for RDF: RTF.

Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 09:28:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:12 UTC