- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:08:35 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: public-grddl-wg@w3.org, Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Dan Connolly wrote: > I think that's overstating the situation a bit. I don't think this WG > made any decisions about hGRDDL. (All our decisions are > in our meeting minutes; if I'm forgetting one, a pointer will > refute my claim conclusively.) I may be confused about what was discussed in offline conversations and what happened on the mailing list. I should have double-checked. Indeed, it doesn't look like there is a decision on hGRDDL in the GRDDL public space. Maybe we can recreate hGRDDL effectively from existing features... that would be fantastic. > Just use the normal GRDDL markup, just like the Atom/turtle test > case and our decision on issue-output-formats shows. > An RDFa document is a serialization of an RDF graph just like a > turtle document is, no? Maybe I'm confused by Ian's recent message that says that he's not sure how the proper URI would be obtained by an RDFa parser [1]. If it's possible, then that's great. I'm looking at the Turtle example. I see the grddl:transformation triple specifies the XSLT. The question is, can different transformations be specified in the profile document, which the parser might be able to select based on desired output format? From my read of the mailing list, I think not. > Is that stuff really not specified to your satisfaction? I don't see specifications of what happens when there are multiple PROFILEs in the HEAD. I see what happens when there are multiple <LINK>s. IIRC, there was a discussion about how each profile would be processed separately, not pipelined or combined, but I can't find the relevant thread. Note that "to my satisfaction" is the wrong qualifier. There are some issues that I care about that the WG has not decided to make part of its scope, and that's fine, GRDDL can't be everything to everyone. That said, maybe everything I care about happens to be solved by the existing spec, which would be great. I would be extremely happy if I had misread the spec in that respect :) -Ben [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Dec/0043
Received on Sunday, 17 December 2006 17:08:50 UTC