W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > May 2013

Re: cnt:ContentAsXML

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 09:37:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkhmVwXO1awZhGyaBOue496EFxBUA74ZPv8GezAvT7wTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On 3 May 2013 03:56, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is cnt:ContentAsXML missing from
> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/20130208/publishing.html#Embedding
> ?
> Wouldn't it make more sense than cnt:ContentAsText for embedded SVG?

Probably could make sense for SVG, yes.

>> The resource SHOULD be assigned a non-resolvable URN an
>> appropriate class from the Content in RDF ontology,
>> such as cnt:ContentAsText or cnt:ContentAsBase64

I read this like "Preferably use ContentAsText or ContentAsBase64". It
should be fine to use cnt:ContentAsXML - if you believe it is
appropriate. The sub-message is that "In many cases ContentAsXML is
not appropriate" - specially I don't think we would want to encourage
RDF/XML embedded within ContentAsXML.

By limiting the default choices then it becomes easier for
implementers. If we explicitly mention ContentAsXML then some would
use that for XHTML, other would put HTML in ContentAsText. The easy
thing about ContentAsText and ContentAsBase64 is that they are more
easily treated as regular HTTP resources - which is what we intent for
ContentAs* to substitute.


-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/
Received on Friday, 3 May 2013 08:38:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:04 UTC