- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:02:47 -0000
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: "Susanne Guth" <susi@wu-wien.ac.at>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> We do not have an XML schema, because XML schemas restrict element order, > which is not a restriction we do not wish to impose in RSS. Basically, the > reason that both of such schemas apply is because we are defining an RDF > profile -- a subset of RDF syntax that is fully compatible with plain old > XML parsers as well as RDF parsers. So in summary you don't use an XML Schema becauase it puts too much constraint on RSS: which doesn't need constraining to the degree of asserting element ordering. However, you do want *some* structure, so you use Schematron, correct? Also, you have an RDF Schema, like all good RDF languages should - but only to assert the RDF aspects of RSS, not the structure. So what this all boils down to is that some RDF specific structuring may be needed (like Schematron. I suppose we could just use Schematron), but on the whole RDF Schemas are the most important aspect.... Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF] "Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics." - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 19:02:40 UTC