W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: RDF Issue: mime-types-for-rdf-docs

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: 10 Apr 2002 12:47:28 +0200
To: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1018431803.696.12.camel@calvin>
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 22:01, Danny Ayers wrote:
> (...)
> Splitting not only hairs but functionality too - an initial parser+router
> could check the root element and forward as appropriate, there is no reason
> to expect this part of the process to be much concerned with the content,
> beyond the root (for convenience it could I suppose pass a DOM tree or an
> RDF graph to subsequent stages, but that's just implementation).

Fair enough.
But you can not reasonnably assume that a client side parser will have
access to any specialized parser for any possible DTD/Schema in the
world. So the client agent may have a way to indicated prefered
DTDs/Schemas, which looks close enough to content types to me.

> (...)
> Indeed, but it's early days - it may be that real mixup graphs turn out to
> be very useful, 

I heartfully agree.
What I'm just arguing that more simple solution will *also* prove

> I would hesitate to design around what's easy *now*.
> Remember y2k?

Ouch. Didn't I hear "not under the belt" ? ;-)

The fact that easy solutions will probably not cover everything does not
imply that we should ignore them, by just considering them as a
particular case of the complex solution.

If you want to use "primarily typed" graphs, then use
application/<sometype>+rdf+xml . If you want to use real mixup graphs,
you still have application/rdf+xml .
Seems scalable enough to me, more than reserving only two digits for a

Or am I missing something?

Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 06:48:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:18 UTC