W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

RE: Authors describing what their URIs mean

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:57:54 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C1D157F4@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>I don't think I agree with Seth's argument here - ignoring a spec is a 
>approach, whether or not the majority of browsers will accept it is
another

Well, when the XHTML validator tells me the page is incorrect because
there is no such attribute as "xmlns:rdf" for the "rdf:RDF" element
type, this tells me that there is something extremely na´ve about that
validator -- not that there is something wrong with my page.  If my page
is perfectly well-formed XML and renders in > 90% of browsers available
today, that seems like it is doing much better than what XHTML1.0 can
claim to do.  This is something I opined about at
http://scobleizer.manilasites.com/discuss/msgReader$78?mode=day.
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2001 02:58:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT