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

Re: Comments on GRDDL (using 3rd-party XML schemas with GRDDL) [OK?]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:48:39 -0500
To: Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org>
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org
Message-Id: <1184852919.4187.570.camel@pav>

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 15:18 -0600, Jim Melton wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> You may not understand why people would expect..., but it is obvious 
> on the face of things that SOME people do expect it, witnessed by the 
> comments and the repeated requests made to you.  If we, members of 
> W3C and of at least room-temperature IQs, think this is something 
> apparently missing, then it seems likely that at least some other 
> readers might have the same misunderstanding.
> 
> Since it is your group's decision not to "pay attention" to schemas 
> in your spec, I'm not going to try to persuade you to change that 
> decision (at least not in this message), but that does not mean that 
> you shouldn't acknowledge the expectations of some of your readers 
> and at least say why you've made that choice.

Well, I'd like more help understanding what they expect. I
have tried to figure out how to acknowledge these expectations,
and I couldn't find a natural place to put it in the documents,
nor could I figure out what to say.

If you'd like to suggest specific text for the spec, I'm happy
to consider it.

Otherwise, please help me understand by telling me a story
or something.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2007 13:48:57 GMT

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