- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 07:47:36 -0500
- To: Lee Jonas <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Lee Jonas <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk> wrote: > Just a quick question: why _application_/rdf+xml and not _text_/rdf+xml? > After all, isn't RDF human readable as well? For several reasons: 1) RDF does not encode or enrich actual document text, so therefore the semantics of text would be incorrect. Instead, it is encoding of an abstract model. 2) Even if RDF was document text, I doubt that the average person would be able to read it without the aid of an application. You had me fooled that the "RDF... is human-readable" bit was from the RFC for a second, but it is not. I've heard people working on this sort of thing in the IETF mention numerous times that RDF and XML are _not_ human-readable content. They just happen to use text. -- Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| RSS Info <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://www.blogspace.com/rss/> AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| news and information on the RSS format
Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 08:47:49 UTC