- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 09:37:13 +0100
- To: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On 3 May 2013 03:56, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote: > Why is cnt:ContentAsXML missing from > http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/20130208/publishing.html#Embedding > ? > Wouldn't it make more sense than cnt:ContentAsText for embedded SVG? Probably could make sense for SVG, yes. >> The resource SHOULD be assigned a non-resolvable URN an >> appropriate class from the Content in RDF ontology, >> such as cnt:ContentAsText or cnt:ContentAsBase64 I read this like "Preferably use ContentAsText or ContentAsBase64". It should be fine to use cnt:ContentAsXML - if you believe it is appropriate. The sub-message is that "In many cases ContentAsXML is not appropriate" - specially I don't think we would want to encourage RDF/XML embedded within ContentAsXML. By limiting the default choices then it becomes easier for implementers. If we explicitly mention ContentAsXML then some would use that for XHTML, other would put HTML in ContentAsText. The easy thing about ContentAsText and ContentAsBase64 is that they are more easily treated as regular HTTP resources - which is what we intent for ContentAs* to substitute. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/
Received on Friday, 3 May 2013 08:38:06 UTC