- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:51:29 -0700
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Dave Beckett wrote: > >... > It seems you have some issues with XML itself, unrelated to whatever > format it is used for. I have no issue with XML. XML trades efficiency and parsing convenience for human readability. This conversation has gotten WAY off of my original statement. I said that: IFF RDF is not intended for human consumption, THEN it should not be built upon XML. Because then the combined RDF/XML language will have traded efficiency for *nothing*. > ... > All of it? There's lots of punctuation that tends to dominate for > more complex stuff. Hence the joking "perl" syntax comment I made > previously - if you want scribbleability of power in the language, > you lose some readability. I don't know what "scribbleability of power" means but I am confident that expressive power and readability are not usually at odds with one another. > ... > In which case, where does your efficiency claim lie? Formats > that people can also read win over your request for binary formats > for machine efficiency. I made no such request. -- Paul Prescod
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 16:54:23 UTC