[foaf-protocols] current consensus with respect to formats
melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Sun Jul 18 20:20:44 CEST 2010
On 18 July 2010 20:18, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the foaf-protocols