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

Re: Faithful Infoset paragraph

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:01:09 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20070130153401.07d91c38@mail.muzmo.com>
To: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

OK. Reading Henry's article helped. Here is my stab at Faithful Infoset.
I am sure that it could benefit from aggressive editing. I just don't
have the time or energy today.

[[
Faithful Infoset

The infoset of a well-formed XML document is somewhat under-determined,
in that a conformant processor may yield different infosets depending on
whether inclusions, parameter entities, fixed and default attributes, and 
digital
signatures are elaborated by the processor. Put another way, if an author 
takes
responsibility for the information in an XML document, for what information
exactly is the author taking responsibility? And how can the author ensure 
that
a GRDDL transformation is able to meet GRDDL's Faithful Rendition assurance?

This specification is purposely silent on the question of which XML processors
are employed by or for GRDDL-aware processors. Whether or not processing of
XInclude, XML Validity, XML Schema Validity, XML Signatures or XML Decryption
take place may depend on as much on luck as anything. Certainly, there is 
no expectation
that an XSLT processor will call on such processing before executing a 
GRDDL transformation.
Therefore, it is suggested that GRDDL transformations be written so that 
they perform
all expected pre-processing, including processing of related DTDs, Schemas 
and namespaces.
Such measure can be avoided for documents which do not require such 
pre-processing
to yield an infoset that is faithful. That is, for documents which do not 
reference XInclude,
DTDs, XML Schemas and so on.0
]]
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 21:00:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT