- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:31:16 -0400
- To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Paul Prescod wrote: > 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. That is a different issue (I think). It's one thing to say that the _semantics_ of XLink are unacceptable for XHTML but another that "I just don't like the way it looks" -- surely not from the very WG that has foisted XHTML Modularization DTDs on us! :-) Seriously though, consider that XHTML Modularization DTDs are butt uggly for the very reason that such contortions are _required_ in order to get around the problems that DTDs have with XML Namespaces. The point is that sometimes we have to put up with ugly syntax in order to get the desired semantics. >... 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! > Certainly. Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 20:49:21 UTC