On Tuesday, 5 June 2007 20:12:37 GMT Dan Connelly wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 11:34 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > > My own view is that the GRDDL spec is not clear enough about > > faithful infoset not being wholly adequately resolved, but > > the resolution being a pragmatic decision based on what we > > felt we could realistically do. > > > > I suggest we reopen it and postpone - perhaps with the same > > resolution, but restricted to this version of GRDDL, noting > > that it is an area where future work may be needed. In doing > > that we can also draw the postponed issue to the attention of > > the XProc WG, and formally give them the option of > > (partially) addressing it. > > I think that's a good idea. I would view that as sweeping the issue under the carpet, where the carpet happens to be labeled "postponed issues". David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/softwareReceived on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 15:12:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:49 GMT