Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Lars Marius Garshol wrote: >* Simon St Laurent >| >| I worry about RDF (and URIs generally) poisoning XML, > I don't agree that RDF is contaminating XML; the two technologies simply have different semantics and processing - i.e. for URIs (consider fragment identifiers for example; RDF is incapable of preserving the partition) and some people may be using namespaces in RDF to denote or point to schemas/vocabularies. >How would it do that? As far as I can tell the two are entirely >separate, except that one of the RDF syntaxes is based on XML. > >| [...] So far, I think XHTML has chosen carefully and avoided the >| really toxic bits. > .. while it does seem to handle URIs in a more reasonable way, mostly to it's retreive-oriented semantics (apart from namespaces). >Quite possibly. Personally, I would have been happier if they had not >only changed frames, but also fixed the most broken aspects of them. >Pages should ask to be wrapped in framesets, not the other way around. > I dissagree. Inline inclusion of documents cannot be replaced by framesets and iframes provide a much better and predictable interface to ECMAScript and URLs pointing to e.g. images, than XInclude would ever will. Kindest regards, Manos
|
