- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:02:43 +0200
- To: "Barclay, Daniel" <daniel@fgm.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-validator@w3.org
2009/8/10 Barclay, Daniel <daniel@fgm.com>: > I wrote: >> report=The <rdf:RDF> is not always required, but the parser doesn't >> recognize any triples when the given XML document doesn't >> have a root <rdf:RDF> element. >> >> The RDF/XML specification currently at >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ says: >> >> When there is only one top-level node element inside rdf:RDF, the >> rdf:RDF can be omitted ... >> >> >> >> RDF=<?xml version="1.0"> >> <rdf:Description >> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" >> xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" >> >> rdf:about="http://example.com/music#piece23"> >> <dct:title>Machine</dct:title> >> </rdf:Description> > > Someone pointed out the "RDF is NOT enclosed in <RDF>...</RDF> tags" > option on the Extended Interface page. > > Getting the parser to accept all legal RDF/XML syntax should not > require the user to know ahead of time to go to the extended interface > page. > > The first page should give that information (ideally explicitly, but > at least with a strong hint that the "more options" are not just > fancy output/display options, but involve a basic RDF/XML > conformance option). I don't disagree, well at least giving a stronger hint seems like a reasonable UI move. But I'm curious how the validator behaves with 'headless' RDF/XML served from a URI as application/rdf+xml, or for that matter with application/xml (with apologies for not testing myself - a case where asking seems likely to be quicker). Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 20:03:24 UTC