Thanks Mark, I'm only keeping half an eye on developments so explanations like this are very welcome.
On 26/11/2007, Ivan Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My first, initial reaction is that the parsing/generation process might > become somewhat more complex (putting my implementor's hat on). That was my first impression too - it brought to mind the case of running XSLT over arbitrary RDF/XML (nightmare or non-starter, depending on your tolerance levels :-) While tree-oriented models are rarely first choice for RDF developers they can be handy for presentation and are likely to play a big role in (X)HTML consumers at large. So I would imagine it fairly important to be straightforward to access the RDF in the markup via these views. I for one can't tell by observation whether these latest suggestions might impact parsing in any significant fashion. But perhaps an ad hoc perspective/metric on the complexity might be something like: how many lines of code does it actually take to do - RDFa -> XSLT -> Turtle RDFa -> DOM (->treewalker) -> Turtle Or to flip things around, how straightforward would it be to rewrite (some of) SPARQL to XPath/XQuery/Javascript-on-DOM. I'm not suggesting any of these approaches as a full alternative to a dedicated RDFa parser (or parser+model+sparql engine), only I think the introduction of conveniences should be balanced against impedance mismatch with traditional (X)HTML tools, to avoid unnecessary pain further down the road. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
