W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2007

Re: GRDDL - grokCC.xsl

From: Jason Karns <karnsj@cse.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 23:34:35 -0400
Message-ID: <1005d65f0705212034u7f5abc94h403c876a349f3882@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>

I meddled with the grokCC.xsl stylesheet today and my version can be found at:
http://3amproductions.net/xml/grokCC.xsl

The html is left untouched, but everything else is completely new.
Among the new features:

- matches anchors in the body and links in the head (with @rel=cc-license)
- it correctly handles space-delimited list of @rel values
- is future compatible in that rather than keeping a library of
license information which can grow outdated with new versions, it
retrieves the rdf version of a CC deed and parses that.  In order to
do that, I simply tack on "/rdf" to the end of any @rel=cc-license
@href.  (Unless, the link already points directly to the rdf version,
in which case, I just use it.)

And now for my question.  Currently, the CC RDF licenses use almost
the exact same schema as the web.resource.org/cc schema.  Would it be
more prudent to simply return the Creative Commons RDF document.  As
it stands now, I basically just translate the creative commons rdf
into the web.resource.org/cc namespace.  The only difference between
the two is the cc:license (lowercase) wrapper element.  I hope I'm
being clear on this issue.  The stylesheet, can be easily modified to
do either or.  The comments in the stylesheet hopefully point out the
required modifications.

Feedback is welcome,

Jason Karns
[ Graduation is nearly here!!! ]
Go Bucks!
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 03:34:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:07 GMT