W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2006

Re: GRDDL and XHTML 2.0

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:58:16 -0500
To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-Id: <1155308297.30621.642.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 09:59 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> Hi,
> How should GRDDL be used with XHTML 2.0?
> XHTML 2.0 has no profile attribute.

Odd. I wonder why not.

>  Does that mean that it should be
> handed as XML and that the data-view:transformation attribute has to be
> used?

That should work.

> Instead of using a foreign attribute, wouldn't it be better to use a
> link element?

I don't know; how would that work? And what's wrong with the attribute?

> Also, I think that generally speaking, imposing a foreign attribute in
> XML is very intrusive: what if you are using a vocabulary that does not
> allow foreign namespace attributes?

Can you think of any important examples?

Somebody found a role attribute in DocBook... similar to the
XHTML profile element in some ways. I suggested he could put
a namespaceTransformation in the DocBook namespace document
to explain to GRDDL consumers how docbook role is like
xhtml profile.

> Wouldn't it be a good idea to support a PI in addition or instead of the
> data-view:transformation attribute?

I'd rather not burden GRDDL consumers with character-by-character
parsing of PIs, nor grounding PIs in URI space. I haven't found
any cases where it seems worthwhile to do so.

> Thanks,
> Eric 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 11 August 2006 14:58:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:21 UTC