On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:35:37 -0500, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Danny Ayers wrote: > > > > One thing I'm not sure about - where it currently says "Atom > > processors", perhaps that would be better as merely "Atom consumers". > > For the reasons Sam gave, we don't really want extra variability in > > what's being produced, but this still would still allow RDF-like > > consumers to interpret the feed as an RDF-like language. > > Does that make sense, or is there a case I'm missing here? > > I'm still struggling to understand what this is for. So, let me ramble > for a few minutes... > > Assuming that there will be an XSLT which maps Atom to RDF, such an XSLT > will have to map all unnamespaced attributes into something with a > namespace. The namespace of the element is a reasonable choice.
I'm not sure whether it'll be a good strategy to allow no-namespace attributes in extensions - extension-creators may want to use terms from within the Atom namespace in other elements (although I guess they could use the qualified versions), and it also feels like it might complicate handling (if this wasn't allowed then 'namespace of element' would still be the rule, except that namespace would always be Atom's). I realise XSLT/GRDDL is the obvious target for this stuff, but I worry a little about thinking in terms of a particular processing model. It would be nice for example if the DTD defaults could be used as a simple Atom => RDF/XML transformation, although I doubt that's possible given the namespaced attributes situation (no-namespace attributes were deprecated in RDF/XML, not sure whether they ever got banned outright). > I'm a bit concerned about precedence rules (what happens if there is an > href attribute *AND* an atom:href attribute?). What makes most sense > here is for a prohibition disallowing such in any exension. I would > support such a rule. Yep, that makes sense. > Finally, I'm a bit concerned about round tripping - i.e., producing > valid feeds from an RDF triple store. Given that an unnamespaced > attribute and a namespaced attribute are two different things - how can > a valid feed be produced? Some fairly hardwired coding will be required to constrain the syntax down to RDF/XML of the right shape anyway, I'm assuming it would only be a tad more application code to change the attribute namespaces. It would be a little easier if Atom attributes were always namespace-qualifie (it would be a lot simpler if Atom were RDF/XML...). Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
