W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: GRDDL

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:28:07 +0200
Message-ID: <48998AC7.6050302@gmx.de>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, public-html@w3.org

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> ...
>>> You do this:
>>>> - Document the mapping between the host language and RDF, do not 
>>>> touch the host language, and have transformers for each of the 
>>>> languages, triggered by contenttype/doctype/xmlnamespace.
>>
>> That doesn't scale.
> 
> It scales for the well-known Web markup languages: (X)HTML and SVG (and 
> perhaps MathML and Atom). It also scales to common image and timed media 
> formats that XSLT can't handle.

No, it doesn't even scale for them. For instance, in the HTML I produce 
I could specific conventions (classnames, link relations, whatever) to 
embed metadata. A generic transformer for HTML wouldn't be able to 
handle that.

>> It doesn't work with my homegrown vocabulary/markup style (remember: 
>> distributed extensibility).
> 
> If you are serving a document in your vocabulary and a program that 
> makes sense of it, are you really communicating with others by sending 
> semantic markup or are you communicating by sending programs? If you 
> made your markup empty and embedded all the data in the transformation 
> program, would the recipient know any difference?

I don't see how that is relevant. What's relevant is what the recipient 
gets. And of course the intent of GRDDL is to have a single transform 
for a vocabulary, and to reuse that transform for each instance 
document. You could use it in a different way, but who cares?

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 11:28:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:21 GMT