- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: 2003年9月25日 16:19:51 -0400
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20030925161951.B3923@www.markbaker.ca>
Hi. I don't believe that rdf:RDF should be required. I'm familiar with the conventional wisdom about a single root element being desirable, but I really don't understand what it buys us, at least in this case. On the contrary, I think it's absolutely wonderful to be able to say that this is RDF; <Person xmlns="some-uri"> <name>Mark</name> </Person> And moreover, that sending it around as "application/rdf+xml" means something different (and richer, and more self-descriptive, i.e. better!) than sending it around as "application/xml" or "application/x-person+xml". I have used that exact example to convince several people of the value of RDF/XML over plain-old XML. Without it, I'm not sure I would have been able to. Give it a try before passing judgement, please. There's also the issue that seeing "rdf:RDF" isn't sufficient to dispatch a document to an RDF processor, any more than it would be to send a document containing "<html" - but sent as text/plain - to a text/html processor. But I'm aware that I'm in the minority with that position. Thanks. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 16:15:39 UTC