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

Re: "GRDDL Agents" section, normative security text for review (# issue-conformance-labels)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:35:32 -0600
Message-Id: <7c32f09a3309eb329c6e0ae46bac7b0a@w3.org>
Cc: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>, GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>

On Feb 19, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
>>> As regards the possibility of recursion in GRDDL,
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/testlist3#loop
>>> We could underspecify this or add my test to the test-suite and add 
>>> some
>>> text.
>> Why add any text? This is just a bug in some software. I don't
>> see anything that's unspecified.
> I don't see anywhere in the text that tells a GRDDL client to perform
> the GRDDL transformation on the source document, but then not perform
> another GRDDL transformation on the result. Maybe I'm missing 
> something.
> Can you point to the place in the text?

I don't follow you at all. The spec doesn't say to not compute the 
square root
of your IP address either. If that floats your boat, you're free to do 
But when you do, the answer isn't a GRDDL result, any more or less
than the result of some random transformation applied to some
random document. What suggests applying any transformations
to any results?

> Without chair's hat on, if such specification doesn't exist, perhaps
> that text and (if the editor sees fit!) a rule should be added, and the
> #loop test-case should be added to the test-cases.

The loop test case is already in the test cases, no? It's not yet
approved; I'm all for approving it.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 04:37:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:10 UTC