Re: on independence of elements, relating versions [XMLVersioning-41]

Hash: SHA1

Danny Ayers wrote:

| Joshua Allen wrote:

|> This is a very insightful question.  In fact, I believe that the
|> example of RSS 1.0 (the version of RSS that is based on RDF) proves
|> your concerns to be valid.  Many news aggregator applications have
|> "support" for RSS 1.0, using na´ve XML parsers.  However, if the
|> RDF of the feed is serialized using a triple-oriented format
|> analagous to TriX, most news aggregators would break.  The whole
|> ecosystem works, for now, because producers of the RSS 1.0 feeds
|> are careful to emit files that conform to the XML format that the
|> aggregators expect.  In other words, RSS 1.0 claims to be an RDF
|> vocabulary, but in practice it ends up being an XML schema.
| I'd take a slightly different view - it isn't RDF or XML, but both.
| RSS 1.0 does more than claim to be RDF - any standard RDF tool can
| consume RSS 1.0. I think it's worth noting that many RSS tools only
| actually support XML in a limited fashion - the proliferation of
| ill-formed docs has meant regexps make a good parser. I would be
| surprised if many aggregators supported namespaces correctly.

I see RSS 1.0 as XML-documents that happens to be interpretable as
RDF/XML, but they certainly don't promote the understanding of RDF.
People just see RSS 1.0 as over-complex XML documents and simplicity is
a major argument for non RDF-syndication like RSS 2.0. Also module
proposers forget about RDF and design modules that break
interpretability as RDF/XML (e.g.

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


Received on Saturday, 20 March 2004 17:18:46 UTC