Chris Bizer wrote:
> Something that we have discussed and decided to delete from the spec
> for some reasons. Does anybody remember the reasons?
I believe it was because describing all the ways you can use a URI in a
link is impossible. I believe 'behavior' was intended to be an
extension vocabulary. Is it worthwhile, though, to define just one
behavior, which is 'treat this URI as a URL' and everything else you'll
have to define on your own (opens in new tab, opens in new window, is
used as a parameter, etc.)?
> I'm not an XSLT crack, but wouldn't it be easier for templates to
> have Resource and Property elements which they could match instead of
> different foaf:Person, foaf:Document ... elements. Changing that
> would also solve the two problems mentioned above.
Strongly agreed.
> I tried to avoid namespace problems and attributes in order to make
> it easy to transform and query the stuff. This results in something
> very verbose, which shouldn't be a problem, because the stuff is only
> read by computers anyway.
That last clause isn't quite true, somebody is going to have to write a
transform for this output at least once, so somebody is going to have to
be able to read and understand it. It's just not an important
consideration in the overall picture, and so while I find the attributes
version much easier to read, the elements version is less constrained
(multiple values, valid characters).
--
Ryan Lee ryanlee_at_w3.org
W3C Research Engineer +1.617.253.5327
http://simile.mit.edu/
Received on Tue May 03 2005 - 16:35:44 EDT