- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:45:52 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- CC: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
To try and get closure:
John Chime and I are actioned to determine what to do with xmlbase1.
I would object to removing it, but I am happy to approve it, with either
subject:
Hence, here are two proposals:
A) [my original reading, using retrieval URI]
I propose approve test #xmlbase1 with output:
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" >
<rdf:Description
rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/base/xmlWithBase">
<rdfs:comment
>Transformed by stylesheet from /2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/</rdfs:comment>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
B) [my understanding of Chime's reading, using baseURI,
after xml:base processing]
I propose approve test #xmlbase1 with output:
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" >
<rdf:Description
rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/xmlWithBase">
<rdfs:comment
>Transformed by stylesheet from /2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/</rdfs:comment>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
and I leave it to Chime and John to decide between them.
(I object to passing both motions! & I have a mild preference for (A),
since it involves less work in embeddedRDF.xsl)
Jeremy
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 20:46:23 UTC