W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: xml literal and xslt (resend)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:51:11 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 15:36 11/03/2002 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:

>Not replying to all this message; but I'm summarising something that
>I read underlying this:
>   Applying XSLT over RDF/XML (or XML) with embedded XML that uses
>   qnames in attribute values can mess things up.  This is due to
>   RDF's XML syntax not knowing about such things and XSLT and other
>   XML specs using them.
>I don't see how this is an RDF Model question, and I haven't been
>hearing any large requirement for users for XSLTing lots of RDF/XML.
>If XSLT's design makes it hard to do this particular case, that isn't
>an issue the RDF Core WG can or should address.
>So I'd reduce your assumptions from:
>- we want RDF/XML to be processable through XSLT without getting corrupted.
>   but it doesn't seem easy to do in certain cases where qnames as
>   attribute values are meaningful in embedded XML inside parseType
>   litearl.  Sorry, we have no solution at this time.
>I feel we shouldn't over-engineer and require new
>implementation code in order to address this.

I'm sympathetic to this view.  However, at least in my mind, my
prepared defense for objections to the removal of aboutEach has
been that it was a syntactic transform, and there is now a
blessed method for doing syntactic transforms on xml - xslt.

If we are going to say that this is an xslt problem, we should
do so being aware that we may be recommending the use of xslt
to meet certain needs.

Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 09:52:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC