- From: John Fieber <jrf@ursamaris.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:45:25 -0700
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- CC: "Hellekin O. Wolf" <hellekin@cepheide.org>, Nicholas Humfrey <nicholas.humfrey@bbc.co.uk>, "public-rdf-ruby@w3.org" <public-rdf-ruby@w3.org>
On Jun 3, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > RDF::RDFa is a native ruby implementation of RDFa. It's currenly on track with work on RDFa 1.1 based on the latest editors draft. rdf-raptor relies on the Redland/Raptor native implementation, which has more complex installation dependencies. RDF::RDFa only relies on Nokogiri, which is based on LibXML, a standard include in Ruby distributions. Nokogiri is a C extension wrapper for libxml2 which is not, to my knowledge, a standard Ruby component or dependency. It is true, though, that libxml2 is much closer to libc end of the you-probably-already-have-it spectrum than libraptor is. Digging through Nokogiri, I see[1] it has ffi bindings to libxml2, but it uses the C extension by default. Does anyone know if the ffi route has feature parity with the C extension? If not, this is a non-starter for jruby folks. In any case, with a prominent third party C extension dependency, I don't think you can claim a native ruby implementation any more than rdf-raptor can. Personally, I don't really care whether it is or isn't, but the claim and the reality ought to be in sync. -john [1] Or saw, when I switched some time ago from libxml-ruby to nokogiri because the former will happily sefgault if, say, the GC happens to run. Just set GC.stress = true and watch it explode with even the simplest operations!
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 17:46:06 UTC