2007/5/16, Evgeny Egorochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The reason I'm for the second example is that some external tools will be able > to extract more semantics from this definition as compared to the first one. > Nevertheless the first one is a valid RDF.
The second looks better intuitively too. It's very similar to xml+rdf but without the spacefilling tags. In addition, the format looks rather simple to me. Parsing it will still involve parsing special escaped characters though. But i dont think any format can avoid that. Go Tutle: Achilles cannot catch you. Cheers, Jos _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
