- From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:28:55 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <sean@mysterylights.com>, <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Josh, >> P.S. Maybe IE and Netscape could just go ahead and support RDF > browsing, >> and we would all be happy. > > Is that the only issue? Someone can make a stylesheet that displays > the RDF document as XHTML or RDDL or whatever. It would work > automatically with IE 5.0+ and Netscape 6.1+, so long as the person > publishing the RDF adds the declaration pointing to the stylesheet. > Making a namespace RDF XML file "pretty-print" when dereferenced in a > web browser should be trivial. I'm pretty sure that's the only issue. Tim (Bray)? I think the main reason Tim first crafted RDDL using XLink rather than RDF (or something similar) is that it displays nicely in browsers. Don't we all agree, though, that the problem domain RDDL is trying to address (describing which DTDs, stylesheets, etc. are related to a namespace) is *primarily* for machine consumption? Less strongly stated, that issue is more concerned with semantic encoding rather than visual display, which would indicate we should use some framework that best allows us to robustly encode semantics in a consistent way. I don't discount the *secondary* issue of human readability, but if one can really construct a stylesheet to display the RDF as HTML, then wouldn't it be an appropriate division? Primary purpose: machine consumption==RDF Secondary purpose: human browsing==transformation to HTML? Again, once browsers understand RDF natively, what's the issue? Garret
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2002 17:50:08 UTC