On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 14:16 +0000, McBride, Brian wrote: > [...] > These thoughts prompted to me to suggest the following: > > [[ > Some standard namespace documents, such as the HTML [@@ref] namespace > document have very many references to them. If GRDDL implementations > were to retrieve these documents every time they processed a document > referring to them, the servers serving those documents could become > overloaded. GRDDL implementations therefore MUST NOT retrieve such > documents on every reference and MUST retain some local memory of the > transformations those documents indicate should be applied. To avoid > misrepresentation of published information, GRDDL Implementations MUST > ensure that this local memory is up to date. > ]] Something in that direction seems reasonable, but that particular wording conflicts with our recent decision on #issue-conformance-labels: RESOLUTION: to use consistent vocabulary, but not use them as conformance labels. http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#item04 <- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-conformance-labels The term the editors have agreed to is "GRDDL aware agent" rather than "GRDDL implementation", and it's not a conformance label, so we can't use it with RFC2119 MUSTs nor SHOULDs. > > Brian > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29EReceived on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 15:48:14 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT