Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 02:12 PM 9/24/2006, peter murray-rust wrote:
>I may be old-fashioned but I would prefer an XML spec for links to
>RDF. That is not to say I don't use RDF but it is rather too
>flexible for me. I would like a link which can be strongly typed.
Please define what you mean by "strongly typed."
>For those who don't remember what we did with SAX it's worth
>revisiting the archives. Essentially DavidM ran it with a weekly
>series of questions and members mailed him directly. Then each week
>he digested these and came out with a revised vision *and* running
>prototype code. The latter is VERY important.
Yes, but difficult, especially since my work is focused
around rendering it. Making it function in a web browser would be
problematic, at best -- but not impossible, especially given
Forefox's ability to handle plugins. I'll need to see how much access
the extension framework gives me to the rendering engine itself.
>I think the issues have been aired enough to make a good concise
>start. It is important to limit the discursion - this list is now
>rather noisy, and to set timelines. Of course they can be revised.
>But we are much wiser now about what we want.
Well, I'm still hearing two camps: 1) The people who want to
render links, and 2) the people who want to do interesting semantic
things with links.
I rather suspect my work's going to appeal to Camp 1, and
probably not so much to Camp 2, from whom I'll need a lot of input to
do smart things.
--->Ben
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
