Re: parseType"2literal"

  I still don't know why there are so many problems...

  First of all, rdf doesn't allow name of resources like "q:name", or it
accepts it but it doesn't translate the q to the namespace defined, but if
you add xml in your literals, you need to know what namespaces are using,
etc... why don't we leave the literal as it is, when user loads this
literal he will try to read it and if he doesn't have this namespace
defined it will fault.

  By the way, why RDF doesn't interpret the namespaces in the attributes
values?? will it do in the future? I don't understand why it doesn't do it.

  My proposal is to leave the literals as strings, when the user ask for
this string, rdf should return this string, the user must interpret is as
xml and fail if there is any error in the xml.

  Why?
  Imagine I want to define my views in rdf, so I will have something like
  <rdf:rdf>
     <own:page rdf:parseType="Resource">
        <own:header rdf:parseType="Literal">
             //xml tags to create our page (xul)
        <own:header>
        <own:content rdf:parseType="Literal">
             // my content in xul
        <own:content>
        <own:foot rdf:parseType="Literal">
             //xml closing the tags opened in header (xul)
        <own:foot>
     </own:page>
  </rdf:rdf>

  I don't want to process the info in the resources, I want to create a
full document and send it to mozilla.

  Is it possible? doesn't anybody else need this functionallity?

  Thanks,
         Marc

Danny Ayers writes:

> The rest of the material posted makes sense to me, but I have trouble with
> the example below - by any (current) reckoning, surely "q:name" is just a
> literal string itself here (nothing can cross the quote threshold), and has
> no connection whatsoever to the earlier xmlns:q=... (without making a
> significant revision of the XML spec)??
> 
> 
> 3: Difficulties with QNames as Attribute Values
> ===============================================
> 
> Moving on to example 7 a_7.xml:
> [[[
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>    xmlns:eg="http://example.org/"
>    xmlns:q="http://example.org/q"  >
>    <rdf:Description>
>      <eg:a rdf:parseType="Literal">
>          <foo bar="q:name"/>
>      </eg:a>
>    </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> ]]]
> 
> ---
> 
> Danny Ayers
> <stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff>
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> >[mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> >Sent: 11 March 2002 15:10
> >To: Jeremy Carroll; tarod@softhome.net
> >Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> >Subject: RE: parseType="literal"
> >
> >
> >Jeremy:
> >[[[
> >I went down this path over the weekend, the results of my musings
> >are on the
> >core list (not yet publicly visible - seems to be a W3C server problem).
> >]]]
> >
> >Here it is:
> >
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0100.html
> >
> >
> >Jeremy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 05:30:13 UTC