W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2006

Re: issue-mt-ns : XML is not RDF

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:20:13 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0611021320k63c774c2j8a659e5c96d6388d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Hi Sean,

I won't cc the grddl list, because I already said this in the telcon
(although you get the had-time-to-collect-words version ;-)

Taking DanC's case, I'd say:

1. there's the question whether it's ok to interpret RDF/XML sent as
application/xml as RDF/XML
2. there's the question of how you determine that such stuff is RDF/XML

I think 1. is *probably* the case (I think DanC reckoned it could be
reasonably argued either way), but it's something more in scope for TAG than
for grddl-wg, because whatever the decision the finding would apply to loads
of other stuff

2. is tricky, but the use of the root element namespace as you suggested
does seem the most promising - although I'm pretty sure there are cases
where it won't work, which would have to be covered

Ok, long term this does seem the right kind of approach for treatment of
application/xml stuff (assuming the TAG agrees), but at this point in time
the problem is just in a teensy-weensy edge case in GRDDL. If there's a
painless way to solve the problem which avoids crossing into underspecified
bits of WebArch, I reckon that's way preferable (I was able to come up with
one approach - I'm sure there are others).

Cheers,
Danny.



-- 

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2006 21:20:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:00 GMT