I only noticed this thread after looking at the same material through RDF-tinted spectacles.
A question for the schema mavens: is there *any* clear way of describing the difference between the three content types (TEXT/HTML/XHTML) in a machine readable fashion? In the Rosy-tinted Description Framework, if the type could be fully expressed using XML Schema datatypes, the Atom content element could map nicely onto a XSD-datatyped literal. Problem is I couldn't see any obvious way of distinguishing HTML from TEXT, as the former would be escaped anyway. So in effect for RDF I think the content would have to appear as a literal, with the type as a kind of annotation, the easiest RDF/XML version being something like: <atom:contentConstruct> <atom:content>yodel-ay-ey-oo</atom:content> <atom:datatype>TEXT</atom:datatype> </atom:contentConstruct> Cheers, Danny. On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:48:44 +0000, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Jan 2005, at 1:34 pm, Sam Ruby wrote: > > >> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceTypeTextRedundant > > > > There are cases where explicit is better than implicit. > > Yes. It's more a psychological rather than a technical difference, but > I think it's important (it's like the difference between ASCII and > UTF-8). > > -1 on the pace. > > Graham > > (PS Are line breaks in Text mode honored?) > > -- http://dannyayers.com
