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

Re: fixed GRDDL formal rules... (and spec#issue-tx-element)

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:02:46 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0611080802tc5bbbd9t7e84b13de85477d2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Murray Maloney" <murray@muzmo.com>, "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

On 08/11/06, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2006, at 6:19 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
...
> Indeed. This is what I've called issue-tx-element
> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-tx-element

Right, thanks - it rings a bell now.

> The only way I can see to embed RDF in XHTML in Atom is something like
> RDFa,
> i.e. changing the specification of HTML.

Won't the RDF/XHTML still be hidden in the tree of the Atom doc?

> >  (It's not possible for
> > the Atom profile to reference every possible content type, any
> > namespaced XML can go in).
>
> On the flip side, it's not sound to ignore containing elements...

That sounds intuitively right, but I wouldn't know where to start to
give a reasoned justification.

> "A naive approach is to say that RDF/XML has its usual meaning wherever
> it appears in any XML document. But that would conflict with the
> existing practice using RDF/XML in XSLT templates, not to mention
> futures any future practice of quoting, quantifying, refuting, or
> commenting on embedded RDF expressions."
>   -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/specbg.html

Well yes, that's not far off my concern over issue-mt-ns.

> See also TAG issue
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#xmlFunctions-34
> XML Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT, XInclude, Encryption)
> raised on 6 Feb 2003

Thanks, hadn't seen that.

Cheers,
Danny.


-- 

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 16:02:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:46 GMT