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

RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (#issue-faithful-infoset, XProc)

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:54:40 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C20294B54C@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>

> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> 
> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 22:59 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> wrote:
> . . .
> > Why doesn't the spec just make the input infoset unambiguous 
> > by declaring that the input infoset does not have *any* 
> > pre-processing, instead of it being "implementation-defined"?  
> 
> I'm really only supposed to help you find your way thru the
> proceedings of the WG; I have taken about as much liberty
> to rephrase as I can without risking putting words in their
> mouth. I hope that what I've shown you answers the question
> to your satisfaction.

Without understanding the rationale and intent better, it's hard to
evaluate some of the WG decisions, which is why I'm asking these
questions.

> 
> I note that HP is party to the WG decision on issue-faithful-infoset;
> bwm attended the meeting where it was decided, and jjc
> confirmed the decision in a recent discussion about advancing
> to CR. I wonder if it's convenient for you to discuss this with them?

Sure, I'll ping them offline and get back to you.  

Thanks,

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software 
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 15:56:57 GMT

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