- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:41:14 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-xml-fragment-comments@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:56 2001 08 23 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >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> Yes, that would work. >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. Yes, quite a few degrees of freedom. >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. You have to have the p: decl on the p:package and the f: decl on or before the f:fcs, so I don't see how you can move them to the p:body. And, as you point out, that doesn't solve potential clashing. >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 14:49:04 UTC