misc editorial questions/issues on spec

Below are the additional editorial questions/issues that I noticed and
promised to send.

------------

Q1a: Missing MUST, SHOULD or MAY for RDF/XML output format.
The spec does not make clear whether transformation results MUST, SHOULD
or MAY be obtainable in RDF/XML (though the spec *does* say that formats
other than RDF/XML *may* be provided):
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#txforms
[[
The rule above covers the case of a transformation property
that relates an XPath document node to an RDF graph
via an RDF/XML document. Transformations may use other,
unspecified, mechanisms. For example, see test #atomttl1,
in which the the media-type attribute of the xsl:output
element bears a "text/rdf+n3" value to indicate a media
type other than "application/rdf+xml". GRDDL agents that
can process such a media type can then produce an RDF graph
in accordance with the media type. Non-XSLT transforms may
indicate the RDF graph in some other, unspecified, fashion.
]]
Is it the WG's intent that RDF/XML *SHOULD* be provided (in the RFC 2119
sense), but that an alternate RDF serialization may be provided either
instead of, or in addition to, the RDF/XML output?  Or is it the WG's
intent to be completely neutral about what RDF serializations might be
provided?  I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think the
spec should be clearer about it.

---------------

Q11: Sec 4, normative definition of metadata profile name is unclear
a. The definition does not say that the "XHTML document" must conform to
the XHTML 1.0 specification.  It requires only that the root element is
"html" and has namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml .  Is this
intentional? 
b. Must the "head" element be in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
namespace?
c. Must the "profile" attribute be in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
namespace?
d. Must the "head" element be a child of the root element?
e. What if there are multiple "head" elements?

-------------

Q4: [Minor Editorial] Unclear source of base URI in the example. 
In Section 2 a sentence currently reads:
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#grddl-xml
[[
2. To resolve the relative URI reference glean_title.xsl to absolute
form, we use the base URI of this XML element, which is
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/titleauthor.html in this example.
]]
It is not clear where the base URI in this example is coming from.  A
browser search of the spec does not find it.  I suggest clarifying this
by changing the following earlier sentence:
[[
For example, this XML document is linked to two GRDDL transformations:
]]
to:
[[
For example, this XML document, located at
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/titleauthor.html , is linked to
two GRDDL transformations:
]]

---------------

Q12: [Minor Editorial] Sec 5: "metadata profile name" should be bold in
normative text:
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_profiletrans
Also "with root node NODE" should be "with XPath rood node NODE".

----------------

Q13: [Minor Editorial] Sec 5 title should be "GRDDL for XHTML Profiles",
since it only addresses XHTML -- not HTML in general.


Thanks


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 14:54:40 UTC