Emmanuel Pietriga wrote:
> Chris Bizer wrote:
>>> What I meant was that the above looks a lot like a repeat of what we
>>> originally called styling, just without the box model
>>> fresnel:container / resource / etc. Style terms. Sorry for the lack
>>> of clarity.
>>
>> So, why don't we stick to the name fresnel:style and just move the box
>> model
>> to the extended vocabulary?
>> For me the above concept feels much more like styling a property than
>> transforming a property. Transform it from which state to which state?
>> Also
>> sounds like transformation chains which it obviously isn't.
>
> I consider the two parts of styling to be quite different, and I would
> have liked to get two different names. But I do not have a proposal for
> them yet. So we might keep with style for now. It seems to be the most
> appropriate term in the end...
I'd like to call for a brainstorm on different names here; I feel
'style' is misleading in this context. I'm not attached to transform,
though the justification in my mind is that it's supposed to describe
changing the labels of and embellishing the actual content. I consider
'style' to be a last resort in case we can't think of anything more
appropriate.
>> I see Ryan's proposal as a valid alternative way of doing styling in
>> Fresnel. Both ways have their advantages and disadvantages. I guess
>> Ryan's
>> proposal is easier to implement but it is less RDFish and less expressive
>> than the old box model proposal which works together with FSL which
>> Ryan's
>> proposal doesn't.
>>
>> I think the arguments pro and contra both proposals are all found in the
>> past discussions, so which proposal fits better depends on the
>> requirements
>> we try to fulfil. And the requirements are still where we disagree.
>>
>> A possible solution could be to have both, a "Simple Styling Vocabulary"
>> (Ryan's proposal) and an "Advanced Styling Vocabular" (old approach). But
>> I'm not to sure if this is a good idea.
>
> There are significant differences between the two, and I don't think we
> can get something clean and non-confusing by merging the two. I suggest
> going with Ryan's proposal. When we're done, we might investigate ways
> of expressing RDFish styling rules based on this (by investigate I mean
> see if we could propose something appropriate, not necessarily do it).
+1
>> I generally think that we shouldn't continue discussing on the technical
>> details level but better discuss the further proceeding and a modus on
>> how
>> we get to an agreed upon specification in a fixed timeframe.
>
> Agreed.
Right.
>> I have the feeling that:
>> - the discussions start circling
>> - the consensus about requirements is drifting apart
>> - the whole development process is slowing down
>> - our continuous controversial discussions are harming the attention
>> we had
>> already created with our first draft specification.
>
>
>> Ryan, Stefano and Emmanuel what is your current perception of the
>> development process?
>
> The same as yours.
Yes, though if you wanted to play with the code I've written, you could
actually get an XML tree out of it now (just from the selection phase,
though). I'm looking at the results with some really basic XSLT
transforms and CSS in my browser.
>> Do you want to keep on discussing details or should we
>> first try to agree on a modus and a timeframe?
>
> 2nd option. I have started working with somebody in the
> biology/comp.sci. on an extension of FSL for their own RDF modelling
> purpose, and it would really be great to have a "published" version (at
> a astable URL) of our work. Other people I'm starting working with here
> at INRIA might also be interested in the whole Fresnel solution very
> soon. So I'd like us to keep going and produce something good before
> summer.
I'll point back at a workshop position paper that's due July 30. Shall
we use that as a solid target and pick dates based on that deadline?
On a different note, I checked out and compiled and am starting to look
into how to integrate Emmanuel's FSL code into my work in progress.
--
Ryan Lee ryanlee_at_w3.org
W3C Research Engineer +1.617.253.5327
http://simile.mit.edu/
Received on Thu May 19 2005 - 00:52:28 EDT