Re: Review of GRDDL Documents and Issues

At 12:03 PM 9/27/2006 +0200, Fabien Gandon wrote:

>If I understand you well you would prefer something like:
>"GRDDLable document"
>"GRDDL-compliant document"
>"GRDDL-candidate source document"

Actually, the neutral terms "source document" or "input document" would be 
great.

These terms would apply equally to a document that is a candidate as well as it
would to a document that was not a candidate. I observe that it would be 
possible
for a document living on my file system to be a candidate because I have 
cached
copies of the namespace or HTML profile, while another GRDDL-aware processor
might not recognize that document's candidacy because it did not have access
to my namespace or profile. My point being that a document's suitability 
for GRDDL
processing can be ephemeral and context-dependent. Therefore it is just 
another
source or input document until it encounters a GRDDL-aware processor that
recognizes it as a candidate for GRDDL processing.

These are also terms which are applicable to an XML Pipeline and its 
subordinate
steps and components.

Regards,

Murray