- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:34:38 -0500
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: tbaker@tbaker.de, schreiber@cs.vu.nl, public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
No problems Ben, as your duties in SWD WG are clearly more important, I just want to keep communication lines open and do want the spec to be out in a timely fashion and to be of high quality and use. And with what limited time you've had your contributions have been valuable. As for typing, from my last post, I tried to think through the substantial issues and the closest I can come to something that might work would be <link rel="transformation" type="application/javascript" media="application/xhtml+rdfa" /> Which uses a media type as the value of the "media" attribute, instead of a media descriptor. HTML seems to say that these are all the media descriptors [1], but there's this sentence: " Future versions of HTML may introduce new values and may allow parameterized values" which...well...puts this sort of in HTML's ballpark I guess, or XHTML. Anyways, I recommend we think about this after Last Call if there is interest again from SWD WG or other groups, since I don't think it should be added to the issue-list without a well-thought through proposal. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#h-6.13 Ben Adida wrote: > > Harry Halpin wrote: > >> >From www-archive as I am alerting Chairs and other relevant people that >> we are moving closer to Last Call...somehow this became an argument >> about typing, since Ben implied that typing was needed for compability >> with RDFa. >> > > Here's what I said: > > >> If I haven't convinced you and the rest of the WG that there's value in >> typing the GRDDL transformations, then that's fine: I know you're under >> time pressure to release, and I don't want to slow things down. Time >> will tell if my apprehensions about this lack of typing are right or >> not. When we fully build hGRDDL-like features into RDFa for microformat >> support, we'll see if we can work within the GRDDL specs or if we have >> to come up with an alternative mechanism. >> > > I didn't say anything about "needed for compatibility with RDFa." (I'm > not even sure what compatibility with RDFa means in the context of GRDDL.) > > I said that I consider typed transformations "lacking" from the spec. I > failed to convince the group during the telecons, and that's that. It's > my responsibility to bring this up to the SWD WG so that there's some > foresight into possible future issues with RDFa using GRDDL for the > XHTML->XHTML+RDFa use case. > > At the end of the day, I just don't have the time work on this. I > accepted the invitation to work with the GRDDL WG, but, as my attendance > and output show, that was a mistake on my part: I'm stretched too thin, > and the RDFa work demands my attention right now. > > So, as I mentioned, "I don't want to slow things down." If no one else > sees the need for typed transformations, go for Last Call. I won't stop > you, I won't object, I won't raise any issue for you to address on this > topic at Last Call. > > -Ben > > > -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 03:34:49 UTC