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: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:09:08 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C202F6ECF8@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "Jonathan Robie" <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Andrew Eisenberg" <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>, <w3c-xsl-query@w3.org>, "Ogbuji, Chimezie" <OGBUJIC@ccf.org>


I think you have to be careful here:

> From: public-grddl-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-grddl-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Harry Halpin
> [ . . . ]
> [For example, a GRDDL-aware agent may have a
> security policy that prevents it from accessing GRDDL transformations
> located in untrusted domain names, it may be unable to apply
> transformations given in a language it does not support, and it may
> feature additional non-normative capabilities such as allowing
> transformations to be found in schemas not specified at the namespace
> document.] 
> [ . . . ]

The problem with that wording is: Are the results still going to be a
Faithful Rendition of the original XML document?  If the GRDDL-aware
agent is permitted to apply transformations that the GRDDL spec cannot
ensure were endorsed by the XML document author, then the GRDDL spec
cannot ensure that the RDF results do represent a Faithful Rendition.  

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 01:11:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:02 UTC