W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > April to June 2007

RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?]

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:46:49 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C20290B2E4@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>

BTW, I had not seen Henry Thompson's excellent write-up on "The
elaborated
infoset; A proposal"
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/elabInfoset.html
when I wrote the following:

> From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> . . .
> Why not permit the desired XML infoset treatment to
> be easily specified explicitly?  For example, for the
> simple, non-namespace case, instead of defining the
> grddl:transformation attribute, how about allowing the
> author to choose between three attributes:
> 
>   - grddl:transformation, which might have standard
>   XML pipeline infoset semantics;
> 
>   - grddl:unprocessedTransformation, which might have
>   semantics of NO infoset preprocessing; and
> 
>   - grddl:ambiguousTransformation, which might have the
>   ambiguous semantics of the current GRDDL draft.

If I had, I would have adopted Henry's terminology and talked about
infoset "elaboration" instead of "preprocessing" (and called the second
attribute grddl:unelaboratedTransformation instead of
grddl:unprocessedTransformation), but my essential question remains the
same.

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software  
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 14:47:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:43 GMT