Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

content module questions

Expand Messages
  • peteb@aliaron.com
    Hi, The content module addresses some important problems for us but implementation has raised a few questions: The description of content:encoding reads An
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 23, 2001
      Hi,

      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 "http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/text/xml"
      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
      http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types ?

      Thanks, Pete
    • Aaron Swartz
      ... Sorry this is a typo. I fixed it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/files/Modules/Standard/mod_content.htm l ... Sorry, the explanation of encoding is
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 23, 2001
        peteb@... <peteb@...> wrote:

        > 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."

        Sorry this is a typo. I fixed it:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/files/Modules/Standard/mod_content.htm
        l

        > The next sentence reads, "If no encoding is specified, encoded XML is
        > assumed." Shouldn't this be a function of the format ?

        Sorry, the explanation of encoding is very unclear, and I'd appreciate
        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:

        <content>sdi98sdf7sdf9sdfs9dfs7dfs9d</content>
        (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 ]
      • peteb@aliaron.com
        ... Thanks for your quick response - it allowed us to keep working. We re looking at your proposal and hope to be able to comment tomorrow. Thanks again, Pete
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 27, 2001
          --- In rss-dev@y..., Aaron Swartz <aswartz@s...> wrote:
          >
          > I'll try and think of wording that makes this more clear...
          Thanks for your quick response - it allowed us to keep working. We're
          looking at your proposal and hope to be able to comment tomorrow.
          Thanks again, Pete
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.