- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 17:39:43 -0700
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Jonathan Borden wrote: > Paul Prescod wrote: >... > Why not just use XHTML+RDF, and the HTML WG develop a particular terminology > which expresses its needs? RDF has the same problem that XLink does in that its syntax is generally very invasive. Of course one can interpret almost any XML "as" RDF but if RDF processors will not recognize it then what is the point? If RDF clears up its relationship with what Dan Brickley calls "colloquial XML"[1] then I think that it would have a strong case as a replacement for XLink. I notice that Dan used the term as far back as two years ago![2] Perhaps now is the time! Paul Prescod [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Sep/0114.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0105.html
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 20:40:20 UTC