* Erling Wegger Linde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-16 23:15]: > Why not use RDF? Isn't RDF more general?
Yes, which makes it more demanding to process properly. If Atom was specified in terms of RDF, you can bet that the same thing would happen as it did with RSS 1.0: aggregators would parse the RDF as XML, instead of building a graph out of it, and would therefore break if anyone actually used Atom as RDF, eg. changing the precise XML serialisation or adding triples in unexpected places. As I found out when I changed the namespace prefix bindings in my feed, even just using Atom as actual XML will break a whole bunch of naïve Atom parsers! I don’t like this reality, but reality has a way of not caring about whether I like it or not… > Could these categories be used anywhere outside of Atom? Not as it’s written. > I'm not very familiar with the atom:category(ies) so I ask: can > atom:categories be referred to / used in a meaningful way with > RDF? An atom:category is basically a rudimentary shorthand for writing an RDF triple (where the Entry is always the subject). > Why not try to use RDF when you can, not try to avoid it? See above. Note that there’s nothing stopping anyone from GRDDLing Atom (or otherwise creating a mapping), and there are community efforts underway, eg. http://djpowell.net/blog/entries/Atom-RDF.html Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
