Re: rdf:parseType="Literal" and XML Fragment interchange

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