RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?]

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