- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:27:22 -0500
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- cc: www-tag@w3.org
me@aaronsw.com (Aaron Swartz) writes: >Conclusion: RDF documents which describe fragments *cannot be safely >served* as application/xml. That makes the registration of application/rdf+xml [1] additionally important, which I see you've taken care of already. (Hurray!) While I'm not entirely sure how to interpret section 5, it certainly makes it clear that typical XML fragment identifier approaches don't apply directly to RDF in any useful way, at least any way that RDF understands. If you could expand that section in a future draft, I'd appreciate it. >(The W3C serves *all* of its RDF documents with that mime type! All of >TimBL's carefully RDF-specified ...w3.org...#dogs and ...#cats turn out >to be elements, not animals.) Would it be better or worse if they served the RDF documents as image/png? I'm happy to know that an RDF document is XML once I know that it's RDF, but if RDF wants to work on assumptions (about things like fragment identifiers) that don't apply to application/xml, I'd really prefer some warning... [1] - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml- mediatype-01.txt ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 19:27:23 UTC