W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > June 2003

Re: relational data views of XHTML via XSLT

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:22:22 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1057787718.IAA22192@phantom.w3.org>


On Thursday 29 May 2003 19:04, Dan Connolly wrote:
> I'm pretty much happy with the "don't embed; link"
> answer to RDF and HTML, but I've run into a
> few applications (geoURL, Creative Commons) that
> aren't going to pick up RDF on that basis.

And the present "trackback" stuff, which is actually RDF associated with 
*parts* of an HTML document.


> Then I realized: expecting HTML authors to think
> at this level is silly; they're not going to write
> XPaths to relate RDF properties to their text.
> They're just going to copy-and-paste and then
> edit until it looks right on the screen. If we're
> lucky, they'll maybe validate when they think they're done.

Yes, this coincides with the current bias of:
  "Authoring, the solution MUST enable ...
  RDF authors to be copy an arbitrary serialization into an XHTML 
  document (hand authoring the RDF serialization in NOT a 


> What is perhaps realistic is to get the folks
> deploying the applications to write some XPath
> stuff... XSLT, actually.

To consider this proposal in light of requirements (these are not 
"judgments" about the requirements, merely asking if I understand it 
correctly in light of requirements):
1. Does this actually permit easy copy and paste? Does this proposal require 
a known document structure document for the XPath expressions to be valid 
across all documents? For instance, in CC, if the document SHOULD have a 
dc:author, then this value MUST appear elsewhere in the page. However, this 
might not be already present, or it might appear in different places for 
all of the pages a CC statement might be associated with?
2. This proposal satisfies the "simple scenarios" regiments, but not the 
more complex one?
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 16:22:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:42 UTC