- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:52:24 -0000
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
> I don't think I understand that... I hadn't read it carefully enough and misunderstood. > > > Hold on while I prepare a fox hole to duck into ... > > > > What I'd rather have is the url of the transform right there in the xml > > document, > > Rather than what? That's exactly what we're proposing; here's > the example again: > > <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" > xmlns:data-view="http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/data-view#" > data-view:interpreter="http://www.example.org/2004/01/svg2dc.xsl" > > -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#grddl-xml Much better than I what I thought it said. > > > and I wonder about using the same machanism as browsers use to > > specify a stylesheet, i.e a processing instruction. > > How is a processing instruction easier than an attribute? I'm not defending it, but it would be a uniform mechanism for all XML documents. Its a shame that XHTML is treated differently. Is the reason for this that adding the attribute would break the DTD? Brian
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:53:44 UTC