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: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:27:33 +0100
Message-ID: <47C421D5.6020705@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Carlos

Carlos Iglesias schrieb:
>>> - 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.

However many (not all) texts are transformed from a byte sequence using 
a character encoding. So it may make sense to have an optional property 
for the actual character encoding in TextContent and XMLContent.

> Does it then make any sense to keep a character encoding that doesn't match the real one?

IMHO, it does.

> Additionally the transcodification problem still remains.

Could you please elaborate on that?

>>> - 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.
> 
> Maybe not the core as is, but it's apparently clear that DOM does apply to CSS [2] to certain extend.

I would say, "there is an Object model for CSS as well" [2]. :-)

> Don't see any comment regarding HTML so I suppose you agree on that.

Think so. Maybe CarlosV has some thoughts on it.

>>> 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.
> 
> I recall the discussion about the possibility of a DOMContent structure, but not about reusing XMLContent for this :o/

I think someone (maybe me :-] ) said, that XMLContent could be used for 
RDFying a serialization of an HTML DOM as well as an XML DOM. However 
there are issues with recreating the DOM from this serialization if 
there is a referenced HTML document type definition.

>>> - 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.
> 
> In fact I didn't finish my comment on the last message. What I meant is that I think the definition is not complete nor determinative because, AFAIR, the DTD and XML declarations are both optional, so if you don't have any of them, what's then the xmlRest?

Right. So we add: "or the whole XML if there is neither XML declaration 
not document type declaration."

-- 
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 Tuesday, 26 February 2008 14:27:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 February 2008 14:27:57 GMT