accepting non-rdf:RDF root shouldn't require knowing to go to extended interface

I wrote:
> report=The <rdf:RDF> is not always required, but the parser doesn't 
> recognize any triples when the given XML document doesn't
> have a root <rdf:RDF> element.
> 
> The RDF/XML specification currently at 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ says:
> 
> When there is only one top-level node element inside rdf:RDF, the 
> rdf:RDF can be omitted ...
> 
> 
> 
> RDF=<?xml version="1.0">
> <rdf:Description
>     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>     xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
> 
>     rdf:about="http://example.com/music#piece23">
>   <dct:title>Machine</dct:title>
> </rdf:Description>

Someone pointed out the "RDF is NOT enclosed in <RDF>...</RDF> tags"
option on the Extended Interface page.

Getting the parser to accept all legal RDF/XML syntax should not
require the user to know ahead of time to go to the extended interface
page.

The first page should give that information (ideally explicitly, but
at least with a strong hint that the "more options" are not just
fancy output/display options, but involve a basic RDF/XML
conformance option).


Daniel
-- 
(Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]