W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2005

Re: palmagent committer

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:05:07 -0600
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <1105488307.7473.178.camel@localhost>

On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 18:04 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> was heard to say:
> | Discussing changes with me first is great, but
> One thing I started working on was a new option, --flatxml that
> outputs a non-RDF XML representation of the data.

Er... I'm curious... why? What does the flat xml representation
have that the RDF one doesn't?

>  I'd be tempted, in
> fact, to rename the --xml option to --rdf and use --xml for the flat
> XML.

I meant --xml is as opposed to --n3 or some such; I never seriously
considered putting effort into something that wasn't using an
RDF model.

I suppose I could change the makefiles I have that use --xml
to --rdfxml .

> Is that a controversial or friendly amendment? :-)

Hmm... It's not obvious to me that it's an improvement...
but the way I prefer to work is: if there's something
a user relies on, there should be a test so that developers
can tell when they break a requirement.

I'm aware that if I make you spend too much time justifying
changes, it's easier for you to just maintain your own
fork. So I'm not saying no, but I would like to know
more about why the XML it's already producing isn't good

>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 00:04:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:50 UTC