Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML)

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