- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:26:59 -0600
- To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 10:22 +0000, McBride, Brian wrote: > > > Consider IR1 which has two XML represenations XML-svg and XML-xhtml. > > > > > > The root node of XML-svg is linked to the GRDDL transformat > > t-svg and > > > so t-svg is a GRDDL transformation of IR. (S1) > > > > > > The root node of XML-xhtml is linked to the GRDDL transformation > > > t-xhtml and so t-xhtml is a GRDDL transformation of IR. (S1) > > > > > > If t-xhtml applied to the root node of XML-svg produces and > > RDF graph > > > G-svg-xhtml, then G-svg-xhtml is a GRDDL result of IR1. (S2) > > > > Correct. Both are GRDDL results of IR1. > > Did you spot that I applied the transform referenced in the xhtml to the > svg document? No, I was reading too fast. (I hesitated to give an opinion at all without working thru the details in a test case... oh well.) Hmm... I could perhaps change the rules so that grddl:trasformation works more like grddl:txlink; I wonder if anybody in the community is relying on the domain of grddl:transformation being an information resource rather than a representation... I definitely need do do some testing. > The spec wording currently allows this. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 14:27:16 UTC