>It would be interesting to hear from the WG why the current RDF/XML hasn't
>already "gone".
My own view is that the WG has been constrained by the charter, and within
that constraint has done an excellent job of cleaning up RDF/XML.
At least some of the problems with the M&S articulation of the RDF/XML
syntax have been solved; for example the articulation in "RDF/XML Syntax
(Revised)" of a grammar over XML infoset is a good thing, which fixes a
number of bugs with M&S. As far as I recall, all the changes made by the WG
to the grammar have been improvements.
RDF/XML is also a deployed technology, so whatever else happens, we are
likely to need continued support of it for a good while - cleaning up the
specs helps this.
But no amount of hard work on the part of the WG or the editor can make
RDF/XML fit easily and comfortably into the XML world; the problems run too
deep.
I agree that
"a separate parallel (WG?) thread [sh]ould be spawned to work out a new
syntax that had less surprises for XMLers"
Hopefully the current WG is arriving at last call, which should allow such
new work to be considered.
Jeremy (HP rep on WG - writing on behalf of neither!)