W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > December 2006

Re: Review of testlist1#rdfa1

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:23:01 -0500
Message-Id: <8d1f9b9c5d4644b1419b833b4303d2d8@w3.org>
Cc: Fabien Gandon <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>, public-grddl-wg@w3.org
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>

On Dec 14, 2006, at 12:08 AM, Ben Adida wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
>>> <head profile="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view">
>>>    <link rel="transformation" href="RDFa2RDFXML.xsl"/>
>>> </head>
>> The fact that it's a GRDDL transformation doesn't make it any less an
>> RDFa statement,
>> as far as I can tell. I agree with Brian that it "looks a little bit
>> broken";
> What's broken about this? There's a REL that relates the current
> document to RDFa2RDFXML.xsl, which is a "transformation".

The RDFa spec seems to turn the relationship into an RDF property named

which is not a URI that w3.org ever meant for anybody to use.
It's 404, in particular.

Here's a bit more of Brian's 12 Dec message for context
of the "little bit broken" quote:

I note also that the property in this statement has a URI of
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmltransformation and is affected by the
default namespace in effect in the head of the source document.  I think
the test case accurately reflects the spec, but that still looks a bit
broken to me.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2006 05:23:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:09 UTC