RE: accepting non-rdf:RDF root shouldn't require knowing to go to extended interface

> From: www-rdf-validator-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-validator-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Danny Ayers
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:03 PM
> To: Barclay, Daniel
> Cc: www-rdf-validator@w3.org
> Subject: Re: accepting non-rdf:RDF root shouldn't require knowing to go
> to extended interface
> 
> 2009/8/10 Barclay, Daniel <daniel@fgm.com>:
> > 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).

I question whether there should be an option at all.  How hard is
it open an XML stream, look at the document element, determine
whether it's rdf:RDF and process it as RDF-XML, otherwise process
it as headless (striped) RDF-XML?

Andy.

Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 20:11:09 UTC