- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:28:07 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, public-html@w3.org
Henri Sivonen wrote: > ... >>> You do this: >>>> - Document the mapping between the host language and RDF, do not >>>> touch the host language, and have transformers for each of the >>>> languages, triggered by contenttype/doctype/xmlnamespace. >> >> That doesn't scale. > > It scales for the well-known Web markup languages: (X)HTML and SVG (and > perhaps MathML and Atom). It also scales to common image and timed media > formats that XSLT can't handle. No, it doesn't even scale for them. For instance, in the HTML I produce I could specific conventions (classnames, link relations, whatever) to embed metadata. A generic transformer for HTML wouldn't be able to handle that. >> It doesn't work with my homegrown vocabulary/markup style (remember: >> distributed extensibility). > > If you are serving a document in your vocabulary and a program that > makes sense of it, are you really communicating with others by sending > semantic markup or are you communicating by sending programs? If you > made your markup empty and embedded all the data in the transformation > program, would the recipient know any difference? I don't see how that is relevant. What's relevant is what the recipient gets. And of course the intent of GRDDL is to have a single transform for a vocabulary, and to reuse that transform for each instance document. You could use it in a different way, but who cares? BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 11:28:52 UTC