W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > March 2007

RE: An intermediate document draft

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:56:14 -0400
Message-ID: <815E07C915F39742A29E5587B3A7FA192A25C46C@lk0-cs0.int.link2exchange.com>
To: <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

See later post - it could be that they adopt some ideas and we don't
have to go our own way.

I am slightly troubled by it being in RDF ... I've never really thought
about embedding RDF and extending it in an XML document.

Are we going to write a schema for this?

Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Owen [mailto:srowen@google.com]
> Sent: 14 March 2007 17:25
> To: Jo Rabin
> Cc: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
> Subject: Re: An intermediate document draft
> 
> Yes I think we'll have to define our own xmlns for new stuff to be
> contained in this document. As long as we're reusing vocabularies
> where possible, I'm pleased. I'm mostly content to let you guys drive
> the definition of this and the output since you're the most interested
> parties.
> 
> Sean
> 
> On 3/14/07, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Abel
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a great start - I have added some comments in the attached
ref
> some
> > changes.
> >
> >
> >
> > I do think that the HTTP-in-RDF spec doesn't quite go far enough. As
I
> > mentioned I think that we'd like to see the field values normalized
and
> > parsed into a structure to make them more useful and accessible.
Also I
> > can't see how you show that a request failed to get an HTTP response
at
> all.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jo
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:56:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:02 GMT