W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Invalid XHTML Re: Another test suggesting change in the spec

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:23:37 +0100
Message-ID: <462CDD89.8010506@hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>


See
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/html-and-grddl-xform-attr
for a test case.

input

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view#"
    g:transformation="two" >
   <head profile="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view">
     <title>HTML Doc with grddl:transformation Attribute</title>
   </head>

   <body>
     <h1>HTML Doc with grddl:transformation Attribute</h1>


     <p>GRDDL results for this entry come both from this inline
       <a rel="GRDDL
       transformation" href="one">one</a>,
       and the transformation on the root element.</p>

   </body>
</html>

The current spec does not license transformation "one", since the 
document is not valid, by virtue of the g:transformation and xmlns:g 
attributes on the root element.

Some choices are:
a) change the spec along the lines suggested
b) reject the test and remain silent
c) modify the test result to show only two
d) modify the test to have two different answers
      two
    and
      one + two

I would oppose (c) and abstain from (b) and (d), while I support (a).
I would be happy if the test was also informative.

Jeremy




-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 16:24:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:49 GMT