• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: RDF was a bully (was Re: RDF and the new releases)
• From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
• Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:06:29 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <023201c28cd7$1f570890$33a1dc40@murphy>

>0.90 was not in any way RDF-compliant.

!

see the cached version of Netscape's RSS) 0.9 spec:
http://www.purplepages.ie/RSS/netscape/rss0.90.html


If you still have any doubts, try copying the sample into the W3C RDF
validator:

http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/

Lovely graph!
Lovely triples!
Valid RDF!

A certain amount of FUD is to be expected from vendors that have staked
their reputation (and probably their dollars) on a different horse, but this
is remarkable. On xml-dev. I'm speechless.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDF was a bully (was Re: RDF and the new releases)
    • From: "Dave Winer" <dave@u...>

• References:
  • Re: RDF was a bully (was Re: RDF and the new releases)
    • From: "Dave Winer" <dave@u...>

• Prev by Date: RE: To be a standard or not to be a standard
• Next by Date: RE: RDF and the new releases
• Previous by thread: Re: RDF was a bully (was Re: RDF and the new releases)
• Next by thread: Re: RDF was a bully (was Re: RDF and the new releases)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread