- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:39:08 -0700
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Dave Beckett wrote: > >... > > Blame XML for XML's efficiency, not applications of it. XML chose human readability over efficiency. Doesn't it seem kind of odd to build something unreadable on top of something inefficient so that you combine the worst of both worlds? >... > Apologies to N3 for that ;) I find N3 reasonably easy to read. > ... > So how about protocols for machines such as email, HTTP which are not > machine-optimized binary? Those protocols are *very* human readable and are read by humans (programmers, administrators and sometimes system administrators) every day. > ... That was a major reason the Internet and > Web won over earlier systems. Such as those built with ASN.1 for > "efficiency" although having no "readability". Promoting that is > going backwards. I agree. That's why I think it is strange to say that RDF/XML is "not designed for human consumption." It would be a terrible mistake to create a web standard in 2002 and not design for human consumption. Making it ALSO inefficient would compound the mistake. -- Paul Prescod
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 15:42:01 UTC