- From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:20:46 -0400
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>, "RDFCore Working Group" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> If we change the meaning of RDF, then we change the namespace. I don't think > we'll need anything more. If W3C history is a guide, this is not really an option. It was made quite clear to us on the XHTML WG that a namespace is a namespace is a namespace! e.g. frames, strict and loose XHTML all have the same namespace. No there is XML 1.0, and the upcoming XML 1.1, and we need to do the same thing. versioning, although mundane _is_important. Frank Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com> To: "Frank Boumphrey" <bckman@ix.netcom.com>; "RDFCore Working Group" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 4:39 PM Subject: Re: Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion > Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > this however brings up another point. How do we version RDF or > > documents or the namespaces they use? > > > > <?xml version="1.0"?> > > <?rdf version="1.0"?> > > <?namespaces version="1.0"?> > > > > If we are talking about changing things around then we are definately > > going to have to address these issues, although i think they will > > (should!) prove to be easy. > > If we change the meaning of RDF, then we change the namespace. I don't think > we'll need anything more. > > -- > [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com> ] > > >
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 21:08:40 UTC