[foaf-protocols] current consensus with respect to formats

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 18 July 2010 20:18, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Instead of splitting us up, let us agree on a baseline, so we can then have
> a nice Sunday evening.
>
> I think we have a consensus on the following.
>
> 1. WebID publishers should produce RDFa or RDF/XML
> 2. WebID authenticators should be able to parse RDFa in XML and in HTML5,
> and RDF/XML.
>
> (note a SHOULD is not incompatible with a MUST, so people who believe MUST
> are in agreement with the above)
>
> In addition we probably agree that we should be flexible in allowing new
> formats to enter the scene, and that as far as possible we should define the
> whole thing semantically.
>
> The problem we have is how to write this out.
>

+1 exactly my take, if flexible, but if pressed, I lean more towards SHOULD
than MUST


>
> Henry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20100718/c2728c62/attachment.htm