Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms
 Eric Hanson wrote: > Andreas Sewe (sewe@r...) wrote: >>> Eric Hanson wrote: >>>> The data in the two formats is pretty similar. Typekit uses >>>> nature and purpose as well. It adds one more property, >>>> mime-type, which indicates in the case of a transformation, what >>>> the target mime-type of that transformation is. This property >>>> is optional however. >> >> So, concerning media types, purposes and natures, can anybody explain >> to me >> why Typekit, while using RDDL's notions of both nature and purpose to >> good >> effect, differs in the way it describes a XSL transform? Compare the >> following >> example from the Typekit Spec: >> >> <tk:resource element="birdcall" src="display-birdcall.xsl"> >> <tk:nature>http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform</tk:nature> >> >> <tk:purpose>http://typekit.org/ns/typekit/0.2/purposes#display</tk: >> purpose> >> <tk:mimetype>application/xhtml+xml</tk:mimetype> >> </tk:resource> >> >> to >> >> <rddl:resource >> xlink:href="display-birdcall.xsl" >> xlink:role="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" >> xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" >> /> Also see RDDL2 (Tim Bray's vocabulary): http://www.rddl.org/rddl2 > > >> Furthermore the semantics of RDDL's purpose differ from Typekit's >> purpose in >> case of a transform. RDDL uses the purpose to indicate the result's >> type, >> while Typekit indicates the result's purpose. IMHO such subtle >> semantic >> differences should be avoided in case of two similar specs - >> especially since >> they complement each other quite nicely. > > +1 for getting them the same. > > I'm not a big fan of how RDDL overloads nature/purpose to > include info like this. IMHO, nature should indicate what a > resource *is*, purpose what it *does*, in general terms, without > indicating any specifics. Everything else should be external. Fair enough. I was making the assumption that one can *infer* that something that *is* an XSLT *does* a transform but indeed it is overloading what would otherwise be a rddl:nature (of the result) with a rddl:purpose (i.e. that the purpose of a transform is to produce something with the nature of the result) If that makes any sense ... perhaps not. I should point out that the way this is described in the RDDL spec is *explicitly* being used as an *example*. RDDL 7.14: " XSLT Stylesheet An example of an XSLT stylesheet for RDDL, which accepts the params role and arcrole. The transform inserts the document referenced by xlink:href in the output. This code is shown as an example and is not normative. " I.e. the RDDL spec does not mandate that nature and purpose be used this way with XSLT, rather offers an example of how nature and purpose *might* be used with XSLT. Jonathan 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
