- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:56:27 -0500
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- CC: www-xml-fragment-comments@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Paul Grosso wrote: > > At 11:15 2001 08 23 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > >Paul Grosso wrote: > >[...] > >> <p:body> > >> <dc:Title>...</dc:Title> > >> </p:body> > >> </p:package> > > > >[...] > > > >> In the case that you have no fragment context information > > > >If that can capture xml:lang and/or namespace bindings, we are. > > I see, yes, it can. > > If you had any element context of interest, you could include > those elements in the fcs and put the lang and ns attrs on > those elements. However, given that you have no elements of > interest to put into the fcs, you can put such attributes on > the f:fcs tag itself or even on the p:body tag. > > >> to interchange > >> and your fragment body is already single rooted > > > >no, I'm asking to put the *content* of the element, not the > >element itself, in a fragment thingy: > > Okay, then that is what the p:body element gives you. You > can make just the content of the dc:Title element (without > the dc:Title tags) the content of the p:body element. Like this? (let's pretend there was an xml:lang="en" on the original rdf:Description element...) <p:package xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/2001/02/xml-package" xmlns:f="http://www.w3.org/2001/02/xml-fragment" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core#" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-mathml"> <f:fcs> <f:fragbody/> </f:fcs> <p:body xml:lang="en">Ramifications of <apply> <power/> <apply> <plus/> <ci>a</ci> <ci>b</ci> </apply> <cn>2</cn> </apply> to World Peace...</p:body> </p:package> Hmm... it seems there are a number of degrees of freedom in how to construct a fragment interchange package to express what we're interested in. I think we'd need to choose a canonical form: exactly where to put the namespace declarations and xml:lang, etc. We'd probably have to be careful about whitespace too. Ugh... we'd have to be careful about how we choose the f: and p: prefixes too, since they might clash. We could move them down to the p:body element, but that still leaves a possibility of clashing there. It might be simpler to just use an rdf:value element as the wrapper in stead, since, as you say, we're not really using the interesting part of the fragment interchange spec, which is the f:fcs bit. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 12:56:32 UTC