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

Re: issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (#issue-faithful-infoset )

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:01:52 -0700
Message-ID: <465C78A0.7040702@w3.org>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org, public-grddl-wg@w3.org, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>, dbooth@hp.com, dbooth@hp.com

Harry Halpin wrote:
> [...]
> Would this satisfy this comment? If not, please specify what would 
> satisfy your comment, if possible without breaking WebArch by 
> disallowing conneg and without forcing the GRDDL WG to develop its own 
> XML processing model.

Those are not the only choices. Please be more conservative
in representing the position of the WG when responding to
comments, Harry.

I think it would have been quite straightforward for the GRDDL
spec to specify that the XPath datamodel it works on is the one
that results from running the bytes that come over the wire
thru an XML processor, with no XInclude, no DTD default-attribute
filling, etc.

That's a perfectly coherent option; it's the one I advocated.

It's just not the one that the WG chose.

I don't see sufficient new information in David Booth's
comments to re-consider the WG decision of 2007-02-07
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-faithful-infoset
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/att-0088/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#item04

So I won't argue the point further. And unless you're
re-opening the issue, Harry, I ask that you don't either.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2007 19:01:59 GMT

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