RDF considered optional

[David Megginson]

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 at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
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 at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)