[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)

• To: "'Lars Marius Garshol'" <larsga@g...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:58:18 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <m3it24gmz5.fsf@p...>
• Organization: Propylon
• Reply-to: <bill.dehora@p...>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: larsga@p... 
> [mailto:larsga@p...] On Behalf Of Lars 
> Marius Garshol
>
> Maybe. This is just hairsplitting over what the string "RDF" 
> denotes, though. It doesn't affect the original point in any way.

Not maybe. Definitely. Locators are non-existent in RDF. If you're
talking about 'URIs as locators', you're not talking about RDF anymore.
As for hair-splitting; I'm not the one forwarding a private definition
of RDF that includes locator URIs.

regards,
Bill de hÓra
..
Propylon
www.propylon.com 

 

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature of DOM
• Next by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature of DOM
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Next by thread: What is this IDs/pattern rot?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread