W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: more on base concerns

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:45:52 +0100
Message-ID: <46310F80.40901@hpl.hp.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
CC: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>


To try and get closure:

John Chime and I are actioned to determine what to do with xmlbase1.
I would object to removing it, but I am happy to approve it, with either 
subject:

Hence, here are two proposals:

A) [my original reading, using retrieval URI]
I propose approve test #xmlbase1 with output:
<rdf:RDF
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
     xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" >
   <rdf:Description 
rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/base/xmlWithBase">
     <rdfs:comment
 >Transformed by stylesheet from /2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/</rdfs:comment>
   </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

B) [my understanding of Chime's reading, using baseURI,
     after xml:base processing]
I propose approve test #xmlbase1 with output:
<rdf:RDF
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
     xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" >
   <rdf:Description 
rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/xmlWithBase">
     <rdfs:comment
 >Transformed by stylesheet from /2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/</rdfs:comment>
   </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>


and I leave it to Chime and John to decide between them.
(I object to passing both motions! & I have a mild preference for (A), 
since it involves less work in embeddedRDF.xsl)

Jeremy


-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 20:46:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:49 GMT