Chris Bizer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> an idea for the terminology issue. What about Fresnel:Format?
>
> Example:
>
> :depictFormat rdf:type fresnel:Format ;
> fresnel:formatDomain foaf:depiction ;
> fresnel:label fresnel:none ;
> fresnel:value fresnel:image ;
> fresnel:valueStyle "bla"^^fresnel:styleClass ;
> fresnel:propertyStyle "bla2"^^fresnel:styleClass ;
> fresnel:group :foafGroup ;
> fresnel:contentAfter "|" .
>
> The term "Format" would separate the parts closely related to CSS styling
> from the other parts like label, value and contentAfter.
>
> To me, "Format" sounds more declarative than "Transform" which I somehow
> automatically associate with procedural XSLT.
I'm not an expert in English, so I don't know the nuances, but from a
French point of view it sounds nice.
Emmanuel
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: Ryan Lee [mailto:ryanlee_at_w3.org]
>>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Juni 2005 04:12
>>An: fresnel-dev_at_simile.mit.edu
>>Betreff: Re: Styling class proposal
>>
>>Emmanuel Pietriga wrote:
>>
>>>As Chris, I'm very happy with the whole proposal. A few comments:
>>>
>>>1) I'm a little worried about fresnel:Transform's "domain". Looking at
>>>your example, it looks like you declare a Transform globally, and that
>>>you define its scope/domain only by specifying
>>>fresnel:transformProperty, giving the name of the property. Meaning that
>>>it applies to all such properties, no matter the context of their
>>>display (e.g., by which lens are they displayed). However, I can very
>>>well imagine that for the same property type, people would like
>>>different transforms to happen depending on the context (e.g. what lens
>>>is displaying this property). Using FSL selectors as the value of
>>>fresnel:transformProperty only solves part of the problem (it puts
>>>constraints on the property's context (in the RDF graph), but not on the
>>>presentation context (what lens/group is currently used to display this
>>>bit of information). Or maybe I have missed something and you can do
>>>something like that, maybe using groups, e.g. by associating the
>>>Transform toa group?
>>
>>(using 'Transform' solely for the purpose of differentiating between our
>>old Styles and what we aim to do now)
>>
>>In our previous vocabulary, Styles and Lenses were generally supposed to
>>be grouped together for greater effect. My implementation experience
>>grouped ungrouped strays together; 'global' doesn't mean quite the same
>>thing to me since everything ended up in a group of some sort. The
>>catch all group just didn't tend to look consistent. A Transform should
>>be intentionally grouped with related lenses.
>>
>>I believe the intent behind using the :styleDomain is because we felt
>>that it would cut out repetitive delcarations - associating Styles
>>directly with the Lens would end up at least requiring a link from Lens
>>to Style. I think it's probably the same for :transformDomain. For
>>Styles, we gave ourselves an override in :PropertyDescription and :use
>>in Lenses, and it could be the same for Transforms.
>>
>>[[[
>>:foafPersonDefaultLens rdf:type fresnel:Lens ;
>> fresnel:domain foaf:Person ;
>> fresnel:showProperties ( foaf:name
>> foaf:surname
>> [ rdf:type fresnel:PropertyDetails ;
>> fresnel:property foaf:knows ;
>> fresnel:sublens :friendsLens ;
>> fresnel:use :someTransform ] ) .
>>]]]
>>
>>
>>> > The box model is done away with. There is no presumption that,
>>
>>say,an
>>
>>> > XHTML tree is structured with the property element nested inside its
>>> > subject resource element.
>>>
>>>2) Agreed.
>>>
>>>3) I'm also fine with just considering symbols in core (for class/style
>>>hooks)
>>>
>>>4) About terminology:
>>>
>>>- I don't really like "hook". Even if it describes the role of this
>>>thing well, it sounds too low-level/technical to me. However I don't
>>>have a strong feeling about this.
>>
>>I'm not attached to hook. I could maybe be convinced that :*Style terms
>>are still fine here, but it's because it feels so general (general
>>enough to be used for styling instructions in an extension) that I'm not
>>sure about it. See below as well.
>>
>>
>>>- fresnel:style vs. fresnel:transform: I'm in favor of transform.
>>>Everything is considered as "styling" by CSS, including
>>>content-before/after, etc., but they are not actually using a specific
>>>terminology to refer to this part of the language. We are. And
>>>considering this I find "style" to be misleading. Looking quickly at the
>>>CSS 2.1 WD, other terms come to mind: "fresnel:Content",
>>>"fresnel:Formatting". Just suggestions, I'm not sure this actually fits
>>>better.
>>
>>I am also concerned about using 'styling' where it doesn't quite fit.
>>We have tried to find a more appropriate term for the things we're doing
>>with a 'Transform' and haven't yet come up with anything we all like.
>>
>>We could consider using some totally unrelated word...but I don't think
>>I'd like that much either.
>>
>>--
>>Ryan Lee ryanlee_at_w3.org
>>W3C Research Engineer +1.617.253.5327
>>http://simile.mit.edu/
--
Emmanuel Pietriga
INRIA Futurs - Projet In Situ tel : +33 1 69 15 34 66
Bat 490, Université Paris-Sud fax : +33 1 69 15 65 86
91405 ORSAY Cedex FRANCE http://www.lri.fr/~pietriga
Received on Thu Jun 16 2005 - 15:04:46 EDT