- From: Carlos A Velasco <carlos.velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 19:23:39 +0100
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
hi Shadi, On 25/11/11 18:00, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: > Hi Carlos and all, > > [[ > That is why any attempt to treat RDF as XML is damned to fail. > ]] > > I wasn't aware you felt so strongly about this. I think you misinterpreted my email. I am not a hardliner ;-) What I tried to highlight is that there are many possible ways to serialize RDF in XML. Even if you use the same API, you spite different xml files depending on how you configure it. I know many people, and Christophe *is not* one of them ;-), who have tried to parse RDF with xml APIs, including some of my students, and that can never work! > Actually one of the > assumptions we had (if my recollection doesn't fail me) is that we > wanted to use the XML serialization in our code examples to support tool > developers who may be more XML aware than, say, Turtle. I particularly consider xml more readable than turtle or n3, but that is part of my darker side ;-) Like I did in the guide, I would like to see still in our docs a couple of examples with other serializations. > RDF'ers much prefer Turtle and claim it is more readable. I believe > there have been comments in this direction in the past. Do you think > it's time to switch our examples from XML to Turtle, and mention XML > serialization in the Guide (the opposite of what we currently have)? No, please :-) I still favour the xml serialization. > Similarly, is it time to reconsider conformance requirements B and C? > - <http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Guide/#conformance> Why? > > ... -- Best Regards, carlos Dr Carlos A Velasco Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT Web Compliance Center: http://webcc.fit.fraunhofer.de/ imergo®: http://imergo.com/ · http://imergo.de/ Schloss Birlinghoven, D53757 Sankt Augustin (Germany) Tel: +49-2241-142609 · Fax: +49-2241-1442609
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 18:24:33 UTC