- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:59:22 -0700
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: public-ldp@w3.org
hello kingsley. On 2013-03-26 05:43 , Kingsley Idehen wrote: > I believe Erik's "text/plain" and "text/html" analogy frames the problem > nicely. For instance, look back to the thread between yourself and Andy > about relative URIs and RDF graphs [1][2]. We have a single media type > serving two distinct functions i.e., graph expression (relative URIs are > fine here) and actual graph serialization (relative URIs aren't > acceptable here). actually, after re-reading a couple of threads, i think it's actually better to think of text/sgml and text/html as the two similarities to the discussion we're having. would the web have happened if there was just text/sgml, a highly structured and very successful document format for content management? if you had the chance today, would you not create text/html and instead rely on text/sgml only? what would be the consequences of these choices? SGML was and is a hugely successful data model/format, but it only really took off when it turned hypermedia... it's hard to imagine how it could have happened without a ubiquitous hypermedia format (based on SGML) making itself known and recognizable. i think is actually the much more interesting analogy to think about instead of text/plain... cheers, dret.
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 03:59:49 UTC