• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: "'XML Dev'" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:19:01 -0500 (EST)

Jeffrey E. Sussna writes:

[on the omissibility of rdf:RDF]

 > I took it the same way. But doesn't that violate the principle of
 > XML as being self-describing?

First, there is no such published principle for XML itself, though the
Namespaces spec provides an infrastructure for such a thing.

Second, it in no way violates it, because if you recognise the
namespaces/elements being used, you can still figure out that you're
dealing with RDF (and if not, fat lot of good they'll do you anyway).


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDF considered optional
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • Re: RDF considered optional
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
  • RE: RDF considered optional
    • From: "Jeffrey E. Sussna" <jes@k...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XCatalog
• Next by Date: Re: XCatalog
• Previous by thread: RE: RDF considered optional
• Next by thread: Re: RDF considered optional
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread