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

Re: Review of testlist1#rdfa1

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:19:18 -0500
Message-ID: <458446B6.2090102@adida.net>
To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
CC: public-grddl-wg@w3.org

Murray Maloney wrote:
> 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view#transformation
>>
> 
> There is no way on earth that the former URI can be taken to be correct.
> The GRDDL URI is the only profile that is applicable, and there is nothing
> to tie the rel value to the HTML namespace because "transformation" is not
> a known value in the xhtml specification of the rel attribute.
> 
> If there are multiple profiles, you have to examine each URI to determine
> in which profile (if any) there exists "transformation" as a name.
> If there are multiple applicable profiles, then you have to examine the
> value spaces to determine which is/are the most likely profile(s).

Murray,

Yes, I agree that that is the appropriate output. But I have to point
out that this WG ruled out of scope the "hGRDDL transformation" proposal
I made at the very beginning.

Here's what I wanted to see:

1) an RDFa-aware browser sees the profile and locates the corresponding
HTML->HTML+RDFa transformation, GRDDL style.

2) the transformation is performed inline on the DOM of the page,
yielding proper HTML+RDFa with appropriately updated RELs and CLASSes
that were specified by the profile transformations. This transformed
HTML can be rendered normally.

3) the updated, rendered page can be parsed using the normal RDFa,
yielding RDF attached to their corresponding DOM nodes.

This also enables microformats to be transformed to RDFa, which is
fantastic for all involved.

The big issue to resolve is (1). How do I request the appropriate
HTML->HTML+RDFa transformation? Is there some content negotiation, or
some other clever trick, to determine which transformation I want to
use? How do I handle the case of multiple profiles? One after the other?
In which order?

So yeah, in theory I agree, but with these issues judged out of scope,
the RDFa group is stuck trying to figure out how to make this happen.
With GRDDL, we can certainly take it straight from HTML to RDF, but then
we lose the rendered-HTML/RDF correspondence that RDFa strives to maintain.

-Ben
Received on Saturday, 16 December 2006 19:19:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT