Re: GRDDL and OWL/XML

Very cute.
& I think and hope that my implementation would retrieve the XSLT version.

However, it may have the unfortunate side effect of upping the 
appararent normativity of the XSLT - in that there would be at least one 
URL that could retrieve either the XSLT or the normative spec.

Jeremy


Norman Gray wrote:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> On 2008 May 16, at 17:52, Harry Halpin wrote:
> 
>> I think the central question is whether or not at this point the GRDDL 
>> WG recommends that at least one GRDDL transform point to either:
>>
>> 1) A non-executable list of implementations
>> 2) An executable transform, likely an XSLT one.
>>
>> One could of course have *two* GRDDL transforms, one that points to 1) 
>> and one that points to 2), but we are not sure how 1) would behave 
>> with current GRDDL transforms.
> 
> An apparently obvious solution here is to suggest that the 
> transformation be retrieved using content-negotiation, so that 
> dereferencing the GRDDL transform produces different documents depending 
> on whether the request accept header included one or more of 
> application/xslt+xml, application/x-javascript?, text/html, or even 
> application/rdf+xml, with the last one potentially giving a 
> machine-readable list of available transformers and their properties (of 
> course, that machine-readable spec could be encoded within the text/html 
> version using GRDDL or RDFa, but this verges on the confusing...)
> 
> That way, if there's no XSLT transform available for a document, then 
> the origin server returns 406 Not Acceptable, and if there's more than 
> one transformer implementation, in different languages, it could 
> potentially return 300 Multiple Choices (that's not realistically 
> supported in browsers, but could be in a GRDDL library).
> 
> The example in the spec includes the XSLT transformation being retrieved 
> with an accept:application/xml header, which is rather generic.
> 
> This seems so obvious that I'm sure I'm missing something, but the only 
> mention of content-negotiation in the GRDDL spec is in the context of 
> namespace documents, and there's no mention of MIME types at all, except 
> rather in passing in the example.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Norman
> 
>

Received on Monday, 19 May 2008 12:50:14 UTC