W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links

From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 17:39:43 -0700
Message-ID: <3D9A404F.50908@prescod.net>
To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, www-tag@w3.org

Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Paul Prescod wrote:
>...
> Why not just use XHTML+RDF, and the HTML WG develop a particular terminology
> which expresses its needs? 

RDF has the same problem that XLink does in that its syntax is generally 
very invasive. Of course one can interpret almost any XML "as" RDF but 
if RDF processors will not recognize it then what is the point? If RDF 
clears up its relationship with what Dan Brickley calls "colloquial 
XML"[1] then I think that it would have a strong case as a replacement 
for XLink. I notice that Dan used the term as far back as two years 
ago![2] Perhaps now is the time!

  Paul Prescod

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Sep/0114.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0105.html
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 20:40:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:12 GMT