Re: GRDDL Going to Last Call

Harry,

Okay, it sounds as if the only way my comment will be taken into account
is if I come up with a complete solution that everyone agrees with.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do this, especially as we try to
focus on completing the RDFa work ASAP.

If I haven't convinced you and the rest of the WG that there's value in
typing the GRDDL transformations, then that's fine: I know you're under
time pressure to release, and I don't want to slow things down. Time
will tell if my apprehensions about this lack of typing are right or
not. When we fully build hGRDDL-like features into RDFa for microformat
support, we'll see if we can work within the GRDDL specs or if we have
to come up with an alternative mechanism.

-Ben

Harry Halpin wrote:
> You've had the typing idea for a while, but you need a
> 
> 1) concrete mechanism that the WG agrees on - and at least one needs to
> be suggested asap.
> 2) a use-case and text to be added to use-case document
> 3) text changes to the spec
> 
> I'm not pressing for it since I don't see what typing buys you besides
> less processing done on the client side, and currently client-side
> processing power is pretty cheap. However, I do think it's a generally
> elegant idea if 1) can be done and found.
> 
> Re the javascript case,  there is no reason why an agent has to run
> every transform if it can't process it. A RDFa/hGRDDL javascript agent
> would run only those transforms it can, so for XHTML->RDFa hGRDDL, it
> would run only those. We do not require the agent to run all transforms,
> just run those it is equipped to, and we strongly recommend it run at
> least XSLT 1.0, which I guess your hGRDDL/RDFa agent wouldn't do.
>

Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 22:01:36 UTC