Re: Review of GRDDL Documents and Issues

On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 17:12 -0400, Murray Maloney wrote:
>  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec

> 2. The GRDDL profile for XHTML
> 
> This section should more accurately be entitled:
> 
> 2. Using GRDDL with valid XHTML

Yes. Done in 1.97.

> It should go on to explain that valid XHTML is constrained by a DTD
> and 
> what the implications of that are on GRDDL.

Perhaps. I left and editor's note to think about that some more later.


> The second example would be much more satisfying if it showed the full
> source
> and the eventual result documents, or linked to such in the Primer or
> Use Cases.

Quite possibly. I added another editor's note in 1.98
to consider syncing examples with the primer.

The current hello-world example of Dublin Core uses invisible
metadata, which is something I am convinced is unwise.

"visible data is much better for humans than invisible metadata"
-- http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats#the_microformats_principles


> Please note that I think that the REL value TRANSFORMATION is a
> misnomer.
[we covered that elsewhere.]


> 3. Using GRDDL with well-formed XML
> 
> I am confused. Why is the <head
> profile="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view">
> needed at all in this example?

Ah... on the contrary; you're not confused; you're following
very closely. Deleted in 1.99.

> 4.GRDDL for XML Namespace and HTML Profile Documents
> 
> This section should more accurately be entitled:
> 
> 4. Using GRDDL with XML Namespace and HTML Profile Documents

Yes; done.

> A GRDDL-aware processor can become aware of candidate documents 
> through a parallel awareness of XML namespaces and HTML profiles.
> That is, transformations can be associated not only with individual
> documents 
> but also with whole dialects that share an XML namespace or XHTML
> profile. 

I'm still not inclined to talk about processors yet...

> Then I move into terra-incognita. I have heard discussions over the
> years about
> a putative namespace document, but I did not know that there was now
> such 
> as thing as a normative namespace document. I also got lost in the
> diagrams
> and the text. I am asked to consider a lot of things, but I never
> quite know 
> how I am supposed to make this work. HELP!

HELP! indeed! Maybe I can explain it by phone and you can rewrite it
or something. I think I explained in some teleconferences before
you joined that nobody gets this part of the spec until I explain
it to them with code and examples and stuff.


> Again, I am confused. Why is it an error to use document() in your
> transform?

More on that separately...

> That's all for now folks.

Whew!

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 28 September 2006 21:05:14 UTC