- From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:48:50 -0000
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>, "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
> If you can think of a test case where somebody could > reasonably use same doc references in XSLT in a different way > from the the way the tests say they work, I'd be interested. I only just noticed the way this working. My naïve model of how this worked was that the XSLT produced an RDF/XML document and that same document references in that document would be references to RDF/XML document, not the source XML document. I was surprised when I noticed what is actually happening. Hence the suggestion that it be spelled out. > > It could come down to "reasonably"; i.e. indeed, the tests > might say more than the main body of the spec guarantees, but > the combination is enough to get GRDDL deployed in the Web. Right. And that's what we care about. I'm still trying to figure out the art of not overspecifying in a first spec. > This perhaps argues that we should make the test cases a > normative part of the GRDDL REC. Maybe. Brian > > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E > >
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 16:49:25 UTC