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

On 7 Aug 2007, at 17:11 , Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

> C. M., Jonathan, Andrew, and co.:
>
> A (mostly) verbatim version of the suggested text has been  
> incorporated
> into the editor's draft of the GRDDL Test Cases document - in the  
> "Local
> Policies, Faithful Rendition, and Conformance" section:
>
> [[
> The GRDDL specification states that any transformation identified  
> by an
> author of a GRDDL source document will provide a Faithful Rendition of
> the information expressed in the source document. The specification  
> also
> grants a GRDDL-aware agent the license to make a determination of
> whether or not to apply a particular transformation guided by user
> interaction, a local security policy, or the agent's capabilities. For
> example, a GRDDL-aware agent may have a security policy that  
> prevents it
> from accessing GRDDL transformations located in untrusted domain names
> or it may be unable to apply transformations given in a language it  
> does
> not support, and so it may be unable to produce the faithful  
> rendition.
>
> Furthermore, in addition to being GRDDL-aware, an agent may feature
> optional capabilities such as locating a schema via mechanisms defined
> in the W3C XML Schema specification [XMLSCHEMA]. Schemas identified  
> this
> way can become proxies for namespace documents that would normally be
> identified by GRDDL and the result of applying the transformations
> identified in these schemas may not be a faithful rendition.  
> However, in
> defining these tests it was assumed that the GRDDL-aware agent being
> tested is using a security policy which does not prevent it from
> applying transformations identified in each test, supports XSLT  
> 1.0, and
> does not rely on any capabilities outside those defined in the GRDDL
> Specification. Such an agent should produce the GRDDL result  
> associated
> with each normative test, except as specified immediately below.
> ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests#policy
>
> Does this adequately address your concerns?

Works for me; thanks.  (But my experience suggests that "may not"
can be ambiguous for some users between the meanings "must not"
and "may or may not"; you might consider saying something like "it
is possible that the result of applying the transformations identified
in these schemas will not be a faithful rendition" or something like
that.  That's just a side comment, though, from one editor to
another.)

Michael