From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > >Now, I can guess that you need yet another RDF syntax like you need a hole > >in the head, > > Depends on what time frame you are thinking of. We need to get done so a > new syntax between now and REC isn't on (precluded by charter). But that > doesn't mean we wouldn't encourage getting started. OK > >but the driving factor of DTD-friendliness seems to me > >reasonable, and the opportunity of having (an) RDF directly in HTML seems > >good for the potential adoption of RDF. > > :) There have also been thoughts of a general mechanism which would allow > folks to say "here's how to map my xml to rdf". In general the HTML WG are fans of meta-level markup (no pun intended), since it gives language designers and authors maximum flexibility in language and document design, so I expect that we'd be all for it. That still leaves the actual design (of RDF in XHTML) and it would be good to get some agreement. > Its a great shame Dave won't be there, but I'm strongly in favour of at > least an informal meeting. There isn't an RDFCore meeting - its turned > into an semantic web architecture meeting. > > I'll put this on our telecon agenda for Friday. Thanks > > b) Would you be willing to extend the last call deadline to after the TP > >week, so we can take our discussions into account? > > I'd rather see this as future work than part of our current set of > deliverables, so I don't think this need affect our last call schedule. Roger. Thanks! Steven PembertonReceived on Friday, 14 February 2003 08:25:45 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:50 EDT