content module questions
The content module addresses some important problems for us but
implementation has raised a few questions:
The description of content:encoding reads "An empty element with an
rdf:resource attribute that points to a URI representing the format
of the content:item."
Should that be, "An empty element with an rdf:resource attribute that
points to a URI representing the encoding of the content:item." ?
The next sentence reads, "If no encoding is specified, encoded XML is
assumed." Shouldn't this be a function of the format ?
What is the intended granularity of content:encoding ? If the format
is the concept that the encoding might then identify a dtd ? Is the
suggested best practice to use "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#dt-
wellformed" when the dtd is not known but it is desired to indicate
that the xml is well formed ?
If the intended usage of content:encoding is something along these
lines would it be advisable to call it something else to avoid
confusion with the more classic definition of 'encoding' ? Similarly,
if the intended usage is along these lines then why not call
content:format e.g. content:mediatype to be aligned with
- peteb@... <peteb@...> wrote:
> The description of content:encoding reads "An empty element with anSorry this is a typo. I fixed it:
> rdf:resource attribute that points to a URI representing the format
> of the content:item."
> The next sentence reads, "If no encoding is specified, encoded XML isSorry, the explanation of encoding is very unclear, and I'd appreciate
> assumed." Shouldn't this be a function of the format ?
suggestions for better wording. Here's the concept:
XML can be encoded in a document three ways (that I can think of right now):
- "encoded XML" means that the element contains the character data, as in:
<content>This is a <em>cool</> module.</content>
or <content><![CDATA[This is a <em>cool</em> module.</content>
- XML included in the document (well-formed XML) is like this:
<content>This is a <em>cool</em> module.</content>
- Base64 encoding is like this:
(that's not really base64 -- I made it up)
Each of these represents the same set of bits, but each is encoded in a
different way (and usually must be decoded to get at the bits).
With format however, each different format represents the same
Abstract "resource", but each represents it with a different set of bits (as
in content negotiation).
I'll try and think of wording that makes this more clear...
[ Aaron Swartz | me@... | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
- --- In rss-dev@y..., Aaron Swartz <aswartz@s...> wrote:
>Thanks for your quick response - it allowed us to keep working. We're
> I'll try and think of wording that makes this more clear...
looking at your proposal and hope to be able to comment tomorrow.
Thanks again, Pete