- From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:23:15 +0100
- To: Sean Palmer <wapdesign@wapdesign.org.uk>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sean, Sean Palmer wrote: <introduction skipped/> > Also, does it need to validate? RSS just has a prose validation method, and > ignores what happens when you mix it with other stuff (i.e. it has no > content model). Should I write a Schema or DTD for it? (Most likely not: RDF > is a Web of partial understanding and trust). There seems to be no official > line on this, so one persons opinion is roughly as good as anothers. As far as RSS is concerned, it can't be described by W3C XML Schema, Relax or DTD since we have clearly stated that the order of the elements wasn't significant... A schematron set of rules is available, though but I wouldn't call it a schema since it's a... set of rules. One of the things I have learned during 6 months of work on RSS 1.0 is that the syntax isn't what it's the most important thing and that we rather need a way to describe a data model --not necessarly tighed to XML. The main problem with this approach is that XML 1.0 (and namespaces and RDF in a lesser proportion) is really the core that a bunch of people designing a spec is sharing and that it would probably be a challenge to agree on a design methodology. My 0,02 Euros. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist Dyomedea http://dyomedea.com http://xmlfr.org http://4xt.org http://ducotede.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2000 12:20:25 UTC