- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:28:34 +0000
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
>>>Paul Prescod said: [moving the discussion to www-rdf-interest from elswhere] > The mixed content issue was mostly a misunderstanding. It stems from the > following sources: > > 7. Eschew mixed content. > > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/10/30/rdf-friendly.html?page=last I think that is in terms of writing XML matching the RDF/XML Node/Arc striping; mixed content really grates badly with that. > It suggests instead of using inline mixed content, use a link to an > element with mixed content. That's for some embedding thing. What? I've just noticed rdf:ID inside the XHTML bit. That's not going to be noticed by an RDF parser. It only deals with <rdf:RDF> <rdf:RDF/> blocks. We haven't spent a lot of time considering mixing these things like this. Sounds more like a web architecture issue. For the TAG. Ha ha. <snip/> > ... But that's water under the bridge, the new drafts seem better. <snip/> > Yes, that is progress. Also the handling of XML Literals is MUCH clearer > in that specification. > > That said, I see a new (to me) concept of forging a document with an > rdf-wrapper. I do not think that this is not necessary. Just as the > integer 5 does not have to be "wrapped" to be a value, the nodeset > corresponding to an XML literal should not have to be wrapped. It is > just a value. Or else you could think of them as graph nodes with > identity. Either model is better than forging a string context for data > that is necessarily already parsed by the time it is interpreted. That particular form of words is something I commented on in the WG myself. There is no rdf-wrapper element, that is just an example of how to compare XML literals using XML canonicalization. If you could write a comment on this to the www-rdf-comments list, the editors should respond. > > Maybe the examples in the new syntax draft, out today, might help > > you? > > Yes! Great. Dave
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 06:30:58 UTC