- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:05:07 -0600
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 18:04 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote: > / Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> was heard to say: > | Discussing changes with me first is great, but > > One thing I started working on was a new option, --flatxml that > outputs a non-RDF XML representation of the data. Er... I'm curious... why? What does the flat xml representation have that the RDF one doesn't? > I'd be tempted, in > fact, to rename the --xml option to --rdf and use --xml for the flat > XML. I meant --xml is as opposed to --n3 or some such; I never seriously considered putting effort into something that wasn't using an RDF model. I suppose I could change the makefiles I have that use --xml to --rdfxml . > Is that a controversial or friendly amendment? :-) Hmm... It's not obvious to me that it's an improvement... but the way I prefer to work is: if there's something a user relies on, there should be a test so that developers can tell when they break a requirement. I'm aware that if I make you spend too much time justifying changes, it's easier for you to just maintain your own fork. So I'm not saying no, but I would like to know more about why the XML it's already producing isn't good enough. > Be seeing you, > norm > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 00:04:46 UTC