Re: why not html?

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: why not html?
by Thomas Zander on Wednesday 16/May/2007, @00:57

I agree with you that using an existing fileformat is good; the choice you state is RDF. I don't have a lot of experience with it.

I guess what I am saying is that we should aim for integration of one fileformat in as many different applications and usages as possible for a couple of reasons. FIrst is obviously code reuse, which Aaron touched on and what makes it easier for the programmers. The developer might like to load the file in a spreadsheet for debugging purposes.

A bigger reason is that when ODF becomes omnipresent the tools for handling and debugging them get more focus and developers and users alike will see these documents as more than simple blobs of incomprehensible data.

I guess its similar to the concept of 'everything is a file' under unix. Using one interface to as many different things as possible might not give you the best solution for each individual case, but on the whole the network of possibilities increases magnitudes.

So, while you may be right that RDF is better (I honestly don't know) for this individual use case, it does not invalidate the idea of a separate library for all apps to use and grow upon. The example elsewhere in this thread that an OCR scanning app saves its text as well as its pixmap data into an ODF container seems like a really good idea to me.
And if we start to have a lot of ODF support all through the industry, then kvoctrain will benefit more from ODF in the long run than from using RDF which will ultimately be less well supported.

Related Links

·   Articles on Developer
·   Also by Thomas Zander
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: why not html?
by Bruce on Saturday 15/Sep/2007, @08:20

Just for the record, ODF 1.2 will allow you to use RDF within ODF; layering addtional semantics on top of existing document content. So no need to choose between them; they can be quite complementary.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"Nobody will ever write that kind of HTML code!" -- The KHTML Team
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.