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

Re: xml literal and xslt (resend)

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:47:59 +0000
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <10109.1015962479@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Brian McBride said:
> At 15:36 11/03/2002 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
> >   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.

<snip/>

> 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.

XSLT over RDF/XML will work for most cases.

This particular issue is supporting XSLTing RDF/XML with
parseType="Literal" where the embedded XML content contains
attribute values that are qnames, not URIs and the qname prefixes
need to be preserved.  I consider this not a big problem given
the number of clauses in the previous sentence.

The XSLT expansion of aboutEach should remain dooable based
on Jeremys' XSLT work, as far as I know.

RDF/XML was designed well before qnames in attribute values started
to be used in XML formats and we have never promised that it would be
preserved.  We can give best practice, if we decide to go the C14N
route, but not much more at this stage, without making too-large
changes to the RDF/XML syntax.

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 15:41:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:17 EDT