W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Content-in-RDF stable draft

From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:13:11 +0100
Message-ID: <47BC2767.1040208@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Carlos

Carlos Iglesias schrieb:
> 
> Hi Carlos,
>  
>> Carlos A Velasco wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Here comes an updated draft with the correct title and some minor
>>> editorial changes for discussion today.
> 
> A few comments:
> 
> - There's no possibility of specifying the encoding of the TextContent. On the other hand if we provide encoding properties for both (XMLContent already has its own)  we will be suffering the same double-enconding problems we had 
discussed before.

The xmlEncoding property specifies the _declared_ character encoding (in 
the XML declaration), not the _used_ encoding. Text content in general 
has no character encoding declaration.

> - Some times the same vocabulary as in the XML specification is used (e.g. xmlDecl, docTypeDecl...),

That was just by chance :-)

> but other the "official" names are not used. (e.g. xmlVersion instead of xmlVersionNum or xmlEncoding instead of xmlEncName)
> 
> May we need to be consistent on this for the sake of clarity?

Meybe, yes.

> - We have XMLContent and TextContent, so it is supposed that for html (not xhtml) we may use TextContet.

Yes.


> Although is true that html is usually treated as plain text, do you think we may include a SGMLContent? (even just as a plain empty container)

What's the benefit of having SGMLContent?

> Editorial staff:
> 
> - May the XMLContent class be a subclass of TextContent? In fact it is a class of text content, isn't it?

Then every resource of type XMLContent would have to provide a chars 
property as well, the value (object) for which is not necessarily available.

> - The "Extensions" section reads "Classes to specify the Document Object Model (DOM) of XML documents". DOM core is applicable to XML, HTML or even CSS documents [1],

Although the referenced note says so, a CSS "document" has no nodes, no 
elements, no PIs, etc. So DOM Core does _not_ apply to CSS.

> as they are very important formats for our uses cases I think we should reword this phrase to include them.

BTW, we talked about using XMLContent also for storing the DOM created 
from HTML.

> - The xmlRest definition reads: "Property representing as an XML Literal the part of the XML following the document type declaration if there is a document type declaration, or the part following the XML declaration if there is no document type declaration."

Comments, PIs and the root element could be mentioned here.

> - The definition of xmlLeadingMisc looks too much straightforward, even taking into consideration that XML knowledge is required. Reference to the allowed components (comments or PI) may be better.

I agree, that mentioning comments and PIs would be useful, but 
"following the XML declaration and preceding the document type 
declaration" is necessary to show that only these comments and PIs go here.

> [1] - [http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-DOM-Requirements-20040226/#general-requirements]

-- 
Johannes Koch
BIKA Web Compliance Center - Fraunhofer FIT
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628    Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:13:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:13:26 GMT