Re: RDFa API comments from TimBL

Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:08:54 +0100
> Nathan <> wrote:
>> indeed! don't have document.anything* on the server side or in other 
>> languages though..
> Why not? uses an XML DOM all over the place at the
> server end, in Perl. Plenty of $document->getElementsById('#foo') sort
> of stuff going on.

valid point, although I don't want to digress too much unless you're 
saying that we don't need any of the IndexedDataStore functionality 
discussed or methods like this outside of the document interface.

> The RDFa API is mostly aimed at Javascript, and mostly in a browser
> environment. If you're implementing it in another environment there is
> always going to be the possibility that some things that need some
> slight adjustments.

agreed, would be nice to have core functionality implementable in most 
common languages though (imo of course).

> Looking at an example from the RDFa API, store.forEach is essentially
> passed a function as its argument. In some languages, like Java or PHP,
> functions aren't first-class objects; they can't be passed as
> arguments. A PHP implementation of the RDFa API would instead probably
> be passed the name of a callback function as a string; a Java one would
> use whatever convoluted workaround is currently popular in that world,
> probably involving a dummy class with just a single method.

just an aside, callbacks map to set interfaces, so given a callback 

[NoInterfaceObject, Callback, Null=Null]
interface RDFTripleFilter {
     boolean match (in RDFTriple triple);

then you can throw in a callback, or an object which implements this 
interface - i.e has a match() method. This covers most (all?) languages, 
certainly Java and JS have set mappings, and PHP can use both (or only 
object way prior to 5.3)

> If, in your language/environment, document.getItemBySubject is
> unworkable or would be an unexpected way of doing things, then do it
> differently, but note the difference in your documentation.

as above, valid point and agreed


Nathan :)

Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 22:45:12 UTC