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: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 12:58:33 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, public-grddl-wg@w3.org, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>, dbooth@hp.com
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705301254440.5003@tribal.metalab.unc.edu>


On Wed, 30 May 2007, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
> Dan please clarify
>
> (either "yes" or perhaps "no" and some other text from Harry that does not 
> reflect WG position)
>
> I take the comment "Please be more conservative in representing the position 
> of the WG" to refer principally to:

This text was what I considered "informative text options" that I thought 
could address Davids comments. Personally, I do hope to  have reflected 
the WGs position, but the meeting minutes the listserv comments around 
those meeting minutes are the only informative option:

http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#issue-faithful-infoset

> [[
> 1) Minimize XML preprocessing by not having the source document use XInclude 
> or schema validation.
> 2) Have only one representation of the information resource given by the URI 
> be available, and so not use content negotiation.
> 3) Restrict GRDDL transformations to deterministic finite state automata. 4) 
> If an author wishes to guarantee that a XML document is reflected by some 
> particular RDF document, that they author not use GRDDL be serve RDF directly 
> and specify that using rel="alternate" in XHTML to link to a RDF document in 
> the representation or serve it via content negotiation in terms of XML 
> docuemnts with URIs (Are there other ways for an XML document to directly 
> link to an RDF document?)
> ]]
>
> On my reading, the rest of the message did seem to reflect agreed WG 
> position.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> Dan Connolly wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>
>

-- 
 				--harry

 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 16:58:50 GMT

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