- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:15:51 -0500
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Cc: "RDF Comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, <jborden@openhealth.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
No, it was a suggestion -- not very important -- that it would save a lot of bytes to be able to change the default parseType to "Resource" for a whole <RDF:rdf>. there are many cases, especially when auomatically generating a serializaion of a graph, when you always use "Resource". using parsetype=resource makes the SOAP and RDF serializations very similar, removing the striping, and in general making the This would of course make all older parsers obsolete, so I would only include it when making a change of that magnitude. Tim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com> Cc: "RDF Comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>; <timbl@w3.org>; <jborden@openhealth.org>; <www-rdf-interest@w3.org> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 4:56 AM Subject: Re: TimBL: parseType="Resource" should be default > I'd like a little help with further characterizing this 'issue'. > > 1) Its not an issue, its a suggestion. My failing brain cells failed > to record what problem this was intended to solve. > > 2) If this is an issue, it seems to be with the interface to parsers, > which is > more to do with the processing model and less with the syntax. Is > this a > suggestion for introducing a processing instruction? Or was this a > suggestion for a specific language construct? > > Brian > > > > Aaron Swartz wrote: > > > > Just archiving this issue for posterity. > > > > At the RDF IG F2F, Jonathan Borden(?) and TimBL felt that there should be > > some way of telling parsers to treat rdf:parseType="Resource" as the > > default. This would be a backwards-compatible addition to the XML syntax. > > > > -- > > Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| my.info > > <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://my.theinfo.org> > > AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| the future of news, today >
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 16:17:33 UTC