W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > October 2006

Re: section 2. Adding GRDDL to well-formed XML for review

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:52:47 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
Cc: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

There may be precedent, but PIs are generally deprecated because
they lack internal structure and cannot accommodate namespaces.

You can use PIs to identify stylesheets that perform a transformation.
You just can't identify them as belonging to the GRDDL namespace
or profile. Hence, GRDDL cannot claim any authority over them.

The mechanisms that we are building with GRDDL provide for a complete
audit trail of assertions that led from the original source document to
a GRDDL result document (or graph).

As a matter of opinion, I think that it would be distracting to include a
discussion of why we didn't follow an alternate design route. The spec
should expose those design routes we have chosen. Otherwise the spec
will be filled with a lot of verbiage that it doesn't need.

If you suggesting that we add PIs as an additional mechanism for either
identifying the GRDDL namespace or for identifying GRDDL links,
then I think you face an uphill battle against the Web Architecture.

Others may feel differently.

If you have a concrete proposal for a PI syntax that would preserve an
association with the GRDDL namespace or profile, we should see it.


Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 17:52:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:09 UTC