W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: GRDDL and HTML

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:11:55 -0500
Message-ID: <45A69A0B.4070901@ibiblio.org>
To: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org

We've removed the sentence about "running classic GRDDL transforms" has
been removed from the use-cases, and we've added TagSoup [1]. Hope this
helps!

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm

Norman Gray wrote:
>
>
> Harry, hello.
>
> On 2007 Jan 9 , at 04.22, Harry Halpin wrote:
>
>>     We've added a use-case to the GRDDL Use-Case document[1] that we
>> believe addresses both the use of GRDDL transformations on non-XML HTML
>> (i.e., as you rightly pointed out, how it is possible) and then presents
>> the case for why XML (XHTML) is preferred.
>>
>> Tell us if you find it satisfactory!
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm#html_tidy_use_case
>
>
> The case I'm pushing was the first one mentioned there, `If the
> tidying is simple (e.g. a <BR> is replaced by a <BR/>)'.  That seems
> to cover the case where the author intends a document to be GRDDLed,
> but for one reason or other (because a tool hiccups, say, or because
> the author wants to target HTML 3.2) they don't produce well-formed XML.
>
> Myself, I'm rather nervous about the suggestion that `The script also
> systematically calls some classic transformations on the document in
> case these were not explicitly referenced in the page'.  That strikes
> me as a tool being too clever for its own good.
>
> It also sits oddly with the usecase's talk of `licensing a
> transformation'.  If I don't put in a GRDDL declaration, then I am not
> licensing any transformation at all, and if you happen to find a GRDDL
> script that will produce output, that's nothing to do with me, and I
> can't be held responsible for it.
>
> Perhaps there are three cases here:
>
> 1. I (as an author) produce well-formed XML and a GRDDL declaration. 
> I license a transformation, and expect/require you to get all of the
> metadata (that is, if there were a CreativeCommons licence statement
> in the GRDDLed RDF, then you can't deny having seen it).
>
> 2. I produce mildly ill-formed XML and a GRDDL declaration.  I license
> any transformation, but if you don't bother, or try and fail (for one
> of the reasons mentioned in the usecase), then I can't object.  You're
> allowed to rely on any RDF you extract, but if that RDF is incorrect,
> then it's my fault, and I'm still held to it.
>
> 3. I produce well- or ill-formed XML and no GRDDL declaration.  You
> can do what you like, but I didn't license the transformation, and you
> can't blame me for any libellous remarks you deduce.  Scraping isn't
> pretty -- I don't see any real need for GRDDL to go this far.
>
> The distinction between (1) and (2) was what I was getting at in the
> suggested text in [1].
>
> The `see also' at the end links to JTidy; you might also want to add
> <http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/XML/tagsoup/>
>
> All the best
>
> Norman
>
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2006OctDec/0031.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Norman Gray  /  http://nxg.me.uk
> eurovotech.org  /  University of Leicester, UK
>
>
>
>


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 20:12:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:02 UTC