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

Re: GRDDL Going to Last Call

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:34:38 -0500
Message-ID: <45C7F74E.5050509@ibiblio.org>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Cc: tbaker@tbaker.de, schreiber@cs.vu.nl, public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

No problems Ben, as your duties in SWD WG are clearly more important, I
just want to keep communication lines open and do want the spec to be
out in a timely fashion and to be of high quality and use. And with what
limited time you've had your contributions have been valuable.

As for typing, from my last post, I tried to think through the
substantial issues and the closest I can come to something that might
work would be

<link rel="transformation" type="application/javascript"
media="application/xhtml+rdfa" />

Which uses a media type as the value of the "media" attribute, instead
of a media descriptor. HTML seems to say that these are all the media
descriptors [1], but there's this sentence: " Future versions of HTML
may introduce new values and may allow parameterized values"
which...well...puts this sort of in HTML's ballpark I guess, or XHTML.
Anyways, I recommend we think about this after Last Call if there is
interest again from SWD WG or other groups, since I don't think it
should be added to the issue-list without a well-thought through proposal.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#h-6.13

Ben Adida wrote:
> Harry Halpin wrote:
>> >From www-archive as I am alerting Chairs and other relevant people that
>> we are moving closer to Last Call...somehow this became an argument
>> about typing, since Ben implied that typing was needed for compability
>> with RDFa.
> Here's what I said:
>> If I haven't convinced you and the rest of the WG that there's value in
>> typing the GRDDL transformations, then that's fine: I know you're under
>> time pressure to release, and I don't want to slow things down. Time
>> will tell if my apprehensions about this lack of typing are right or
>> not. When we fully build hGRDDL-like features into RDFa for microformat
>> support, we'll see if we can work within the GRDDL specs or if we have
>> to come up with an alternative mechanism.
> I didn't say anything about "needed for compatibility with RDFa." (I'm
> not even sure what compatibility with RDFa means in the context of GRDDL.)
> I said that I consider typed transformations "lacking" from the spec. I
> failed to convince the group during the telecons, and that's that. It's
> my responsibility to bring this up to the SWD WG so that there's some
> foresight into possible future issues with RDFa using GRDDL for the
> XHTML->XHTML+RDFa use case.
> At the end of the day, I just don't have the time work on this. I
> accepted the invitation to work with the GRDDL WG, but, as my attendance
> and output show, that was a mistake on my part: I'm stretched too thin,
> and the RDFa work demands my attention right now.
> So, as I mentioned, "I don't want to slow things down." If no one else
> sees the need for typed transformations, go for Last Call. I won't stop
> you, I won't object, I won't raise any issue for you to address on this
> topic at Last Call.
> -Ben


Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 03:34:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:10 UTC