- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:52:45 -0500
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 16:10 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: [...] > > Okay, but with regard to providing RDF/XML output, I do not see the word > "SHOULD" (in the RFC 2119 sense) in the spec. Is it the WG's intent > that RDF/XML *SHOULD* be provided, but that an alternate RDF > serialization may be provided either instead of, or in addition to, the > RDF/XML output? Or is it the WG's intent to be completely neutral about > what RDF serializations might be provided? The WG encourages the use of RDF/XML by example in the spec, the primer and test cases documents. The lack of an explicit rfc2119:should is perhaps an oversight. I'll have to think about that a bit... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 20:52:48 UTC