[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Atomic age

To: Dan Brickley <danbri@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: The Atomic age
From: Sjoerd Visscher <sjoerd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:24:28 +0200
Cc: atom-syntax <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

Dan Brickley wrote:

Let me emphasise that I'm not claiming these Atom docs "are" reasonably interpreted as RDF. Just that they seem to, by happy coincidence as it were, at least share a syntax with RDF. The intepretation of this syntactic state of affairs is up for discussion.

I've never understood what makes hybrid RDF/other xml formats appealing. A simple xslt conversion turnes the xml format (the whole format, not a subset) in much better RDF, with no compromises.

--
Sjoerd Visscher
http://w3future.com/weblog/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Atomic age
  - From: Dan Brickley

References:
- The Atomic age
  - From: Tim Bray
- Re: The Atomic age
  - From: Walter Underwood
- Re: The Atomic age
  - From: Graham
- Re: The Atomic age
  - From: Robert Sayre
- Re: The Atomic age
  - From: Dan Brickley

Prev by Date: Re: The Atomic age
Next by Date: Re: The Atomic age
Previous by thread: Re: The Atomic age
Next by thread: Re: The Atomic age
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread