RE: Authors describing what their URIs mean

I don't think I agree with Seth's argument here - ignoring a spec is a risky
approach, whether or not the majority of browsers will accept it is another
issue (the spectre of browser wars looms). More worrying is how a machine is
expected to interpret the information (browsers are *not* the only readers
of HTML) - surely document validity is an important prerequisite? (though
admittedly not always essential) If the silverware isn't stamped, how do we
know it's silver? I certainly don't think this is minutia or absurd - rather
fundamental, and rational in fact.

I'm not sure, but probably until this issue is resolved, I think it would be
better practise to use meta tags in HTML rather than invalidate the document
with shoehorned RDF.

(BTW, righteously following the Dans' suggestions I've cut 6 targets out of
the To: & CC: fields. Now how do I collect my bandwidth rebate?)

Danny Ayers

<- -----Original Message-----
<- From:
<- []On Behalf Of Joshua Allen
<- Sent: 15 April 2001 07:11
<- To: Seth Russell; Lee Jonas; Charles McCathieNevile; Danny Ayers
<- Cc: RDF Logic; RDF Interest; Aaron Swartz
<- Subject: RE: Authors describing what their URIs mean
<- (Seth, speaking of the uncertainty caused by the fact that RDF embedded
<- in HTML as per the FAQ fails the W3C validation for HTML 4.01 and XHTML
<- 1.0):
<- >absurdity.  If the semantic web is to happen, then such unforgiving
<- minutia
<- >as this, will have to be left happily behind us.
<- FWIW, I tested the example in the FAQ and it works without complaint in
<- Netscape 6, Netscape 4.75, Opera 5, and IE 6.  It does not work in
<- Amaya.
<- So I see no need to hesitate..
<- -J

Received on Sunday, 15 April 2001 00:51:54 UTC