rdf:RDF should be optional from Mark Baker on 2003-09-25 (www-rdf-comments@w3.org from July to September 2003) (original) (raw)

Hi.

I don't believe that rdf:RDF should be required. I'm familiar with the conventional wisdom about a single root element being desirable, but I really don't understand what it buys us, at least in this case. On the contrary, I think it's absolutely wonderful to be able to say that this is RDF;

And moreover, that sending it around as "application/rdf+xml" means something different (and richer, and more self-descriptive, i.e. better!) than sending it around as "application/xml" or "application/x-person+xml".

I have used that exact example to convince several people of the value of RDF/XML over plain-old XML. Without it, I'm not sure I would have been able to. Give it a try before passing judgement, please.

There's also the issue that seeing "rdf:RDF" isn't sufficient to dispatch a document to an RDF processor, any more than it would be to send a document containing "<html" - but sent as text/plain - to a text/html processor. But I'm aware that I'm in the minority with that position.

Thanks.

Mark.

Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 16:15:39 UTC