David Powell wrote:
Sunday, January 30, 2005, 1:10:18 AM, you wrote:
David Powell wrote:
I don't think using an XSLT processor followed by an RDF/XML parser
would be much fun in practise - a SAX based convertor would be much
simpler.
Those two are not incompatible.
Example: Xalan can accept a SA
David Powell wrote:
I meant, although:
XML --[XSLT]--> RDF/XML --[RDF/XML-parser]--> RDF-model
...is an ok reference implementation for demonstrating an RDF mapping,
the mapping should be defined in prose, because:
XML --[SAX]--> RDF-model
...would be a lot more efficient
I think the mapping sh
Sunday, January 30, 2005, 1:10:18 AM, you wrote:
> David Powell wrote:
>>
>> I don't think using an XSLT processor followed by an RDF/XML parser
>> would be much fun in practise - a SAX based convertor would be much
>> simpler.
> Those two are not incompatible.
> Example: Xalan can accept a
Hello Robert,
Thanks for your questions, and for studying IRIs so carefully.
At 09:15 05/01/29, Robert Sayre wrote:
>IRIs are a step forward and important to include in the spec, but they
also worry me. In RFC3987, I read the following:
>
>"The approach of defining a new protocol element was chose
David Powell wrote:
I don't think using an XSLT processor followed by an RDF/XML parser
would be much fun in practise - a SAX based convertor would be much
simpler.
Those two are not incompatible.
Example: Xalan can accept a SAX input stream and can produce a SAX input
stream. Jena can accept a S
As I understand it, if I implement an Atom processor that doesn't
support IRIs, It's not conformant, and will have problems with some
valid feeds, when dereferencing IRIs.
So, if we require support, it's potentially setting a higher bar for
implementations. It wouldn't be a big deal to require
Not to advocate one position or another, but RFC 3987 doesn't obsolete
RFC 3986; we have a choice.
On Jan 24, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
If there were no further discussion: It's hard to see how to avoid
adopting this now that IRIs are standards-track RFC. -Tim
--
Mark Nottingham ht
Sam Ruby wrote:
I'm recommending AtomAsRDF and PaceFeedRecursive for closure merely
because they are incomplete. If they become complete, I will update
their status accordingly.
Please do.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Unfortunately, I have a paper deadline on Tuesday and can't
procrastinate any long
* Dan Brickley wrote:
>> Considering the large amount of (X)HTML that are being syndicated via RSS
>> and Atom today and will be in the future, I think we should. (X)HTML will
>> be the main markup used inside all Atom Text Constructs, and while MathML,
>> SVG and other markup languages we d
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 06:06:54 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:21:08 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Whereas you could technically get by with warning-by-reference, I think
> > that it's OK and fact probably essential to point out that an
On 29/1/05 5:15 PM, "Asbjørn Ulsberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know what we're talking about and still don't understand why embedding
> so-called «favorite icons» is so wildely different from embedding other
> types of graphical objects in feeds (at all levels) that it has to be done
> in a
* Tim Bray wrote:
>At this point we should appeal to our designated IETF culture/process
>experts; Scott/Ted/Paul, any guidance?
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3552.txt
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www
* Asbjørn Ulsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-01-29 06:05+0100]
>
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:01:06 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I guess the question is whether we can and should outline HTML security
> >issues. I don't think we can or should.
>
> Considering the large a
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:27:11 +, David Powell
> I've put together an XSLT stylesheet to map Atom to RDF/XML. It is
> just as a proof of concept to see if it is possible. I think it
> handles everything except for xml:lang - I'm not sure what's happening
> with xml:lang at the moment - but it
On Jan 29, 2005, at 00:39, Sam Ruby wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 28, 2005, at 20:21, Sam Ruby wrote:
I also don't like the restriction on where namespace declarations
must
be placed, but overall, I believe that the pace is a good idea.
I, for one, use gnu.xml.pipeline.NSFilter for ensuring t
15 matches
Mail list logo
