- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:02:15 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Dan Connolly wrote: > As to why not use it: because I don't want to implement attribute > parsing above the XML parser layer. It's bad enough that XSLT > doesn't have a standard library function for making an absolute > URI out of a base and a relative URI and that I had to code that > by hand. > http://www.w3.org/2000/07/uri43/uri.xsl This is Off topic, but I wonder if this is the motivation for having the base URI passed as a parameter (which I don't think is a good mechanism for XSLT) - if it isn't then disregard. I can see the general value of needing such a function (4Suite XSLT had to have one implemented explicitely since not even EXSLT provides this functionality) but I would think the 'native' resolving mechanism (http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#base-uri) should be driven by the base provided in the source document (explicitely with xml:base) rather than overiding it with an XSLT function / macro. > Also, I consider the <?xml-stylesheet ?> link to relate a document > to a transformation of that document for display for a human. > I guess the spec doesn't say that. > > If I had a purchase order or something, I'd expect to be able > to use the <?xml-stylesheet ?> PI to tell user agents how > to display it for people, and a grddl:transformation link to > tell data agents how to get data out of it. I see. I think it would help to express this distinction in the specification itself. >> >> - Respond to grddl:transformation attribute on root document, resolving transform by HTTP URL >> - Respond to <?xml-stylesheet type='..' href='..' appropriately to resolve transformation (fail if not one of the *expected* transformation types) >> - Resolve RDF from namespace URI and respond to namespaceTransformation assertions (in RDF) >> - Resolve a (master/default) RDF document from a URI (which would this be?) for a set of 'default' namespaceTransformation assertions > > I don't understand the last one at all. Maybe you could > elaborate by way of an example? I.e., (perhaps) the GRDDL namespace URL returns a document a GRDDL client can use to extract a default set of namespaceTransformations (for major vocabularies). 1) GRDDL namespace -> GRDDL profile XHTML 2) GRDDL transform -> RDF statements which include (amongst other things) default namespaceTransformations > Otherwise, I could live with that. But I won't actively support > the <?xml-stylesheet?> PI; I'll expect other people to provide > the relevant test cases and trial implementation experience. I think explicitely distinguishing between <?xml-stylesheet?> and the GRDDL-specific mechanism gives implementors enough guidance to make a determination of how to accomodate both (possibly). Chimezie Ogbuji Lead Systems Analyst Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Cleveland Clinic Foundation 9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26 Cleveland, Ohio 44195 Office: (216)444-8593 ogbujic@ccf.org
Received on Friday, 25 August 2006 20:02:27 UTC