Re: let's specify meaning rather than processing

• From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
• Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:00:17 -0600
• To: Dominique Haza?l-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
• Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <1074294016.23706.3768.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 08:01, Dominique Haza?l-Massieux wrote:
[...]
> > I said I'd help revise the rdf-in-xhtml-proposal along those lines.
> > I wonder if that essay gives you enough to get started. Let me
> > know if it doesn't.
> 
> I'm not sure; I've put a new version of the document:
> https://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec
> trying to use a more declarative style, than procedural, but I may have
> failed to do so as expected by you and Tim; if so, I suggest you show me
> an example of what should be done based on this new version of the text.
That was a great start. After working thru various technical
details (grokRDDL and such) I found some inspiration to do
some writing today. What do you think of this new draft?
Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL)
Draft W3C Coordination Group Note $Date: 2004/01/16 22:53:57 $
This Version:
        $Revision: 1.11 $
Working Version:
        https://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec
Previous version:
        Nov 2003
Authors:
        Dominique Haza?l-Massieux, Dan Connolly
        
> In addition to the changes evoked above, I've also started to add the
> generalization to XML,
Is that bit implemented? I guess I could try it and see...
let's make some tests.
>  plus the definition of the RDF property Tim
> requested to link an XML Namespace to an interpreter; let me know if you
> think I've captured it adequately.
I haven't finished digesting that idea; haven't written
any code/tests/working-examples using it yet.
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C https://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 18:00:18 UTC