- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:58:50 +0000
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
>>>Jonathan Borden said:
> Take a look at this example: http://www.rddl.org/RDDL2-example.html
>
> It browses and is legal RDF, so the decisions left are:
That is true.
> which root element <rdf:RDF> or <html:html> ?
rdf:RDF if you want to call it RDF/XML (caveats, already discussed previously).
> Do we want RDDL to be legal XHTML that contains RDF snippets or legal RDF
> that is browsable? (browsers as you know are quite forgiving).
I was assuming that there would be complaints over:
<rddl:prose rdf:parseType="Literal">
....
</rddl:prose>
and the former was more of the (original?) intention of RDDL.
Dave
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 05:59:59 UTC