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

Re: Review of testlist1#rdfa1

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:47:06 -0500
Message-ID: <4580E55A.1050506@adida.net>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Fabien Gandon <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>, public-grddl-wg@w3.org

Dan Connolly wrote:
> Yes, that would be better, I suppose, though the HTML 4 spec is reasonably
> clear that when a link relationship is dominated by a profile, the profile
> is what grounds the link relationship in URI space, and the link
> relationship
> isn't defined by HTML.

Yes, in fact, I was asking about the GRDDL profile thing because, as you
and I discussed a while ago, this really *should* be performed by what
I've called "hGRDDL"... In other words, the PROFILE on the HEAD defines
how to modify the DOM for certain reserved words, so that
rel="transformation" becomes rel="grddl:transformation".

But of course, hGRDDL is out of scope for GRDDL, so... :) we're going to
be a bit stuck, I fear. I'll keep thinking about this one. If you've got
some ideas on this, let me know. What I'd like to see is a consistent
RDFa story, where this really does yield an HTML+RDFa representation of
the triple:

<> grddl:transformation <RDFa2RDFXML.xsl>

Because that's what the document really says!

Received on Thursday, 14 December 2006 05:47:05 UTC

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