On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:29:19 -0400, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> wrote: > [snip] > > This is great :) > > I'm wondering about the prospects for GRDDL'ing RDF/A. > > Specifically, I want the FOAF spec (a) to validate, (b) to embed > within its XHTML some RDF statements, as well as having a > content-negotiable index.rdf RDF/XML version. > > Do you know which versions of XSLT are supported currently in your > GRDDL implementation? Is it whatever libxslt handles? yes, it's whatever libxslt does. I'm not writing one of them too! http://xmlsoft.org/XSLT/ seems to suggest it's XSLT1 with some extras. > I don't know if unconstrained RDF/A can be GRDDL'd in XSLT 1.0 due to the > qnames in attributes... I remember Jeremy and MaxF both started on > RDF/A parsers in XSLT though. No idea, I've not been following the detail of that, and happily I don't need to code it as if anyone writes the XSLT transform it'll just work :) Re conneg and so on. In situations where raptor has to guess a parser to use (say, as a SPARQL data source URI) and fetch an url it sends an Accept: to prefer rdf/xml and not offer a choice to get the html one and transform it. I'm betting having both rdf/xml and xhtml+grddl conneged is rare. You could always provide different urls without conneg (/index.html, /index.rdf). Also, in a protocol situation is it necessary/required to only apply grddl transform if the xhtml mime type is correct? Or try to read it into an XML document whatever the type? DaveReceived on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 10:57:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:59 GMT