- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:35:53 -0400
- To: "Murray Maloney" <murray@muzmo.com>
- Cc: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
> From: Murray Maloney > > At 01:59 PM 6/15/2007 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - > Boston) wrote: > [ . . . ] > >If a GRDDL-aware agent changes all 5's to 7's (perhaps at > the explicit > >license of the user), the document publisher cannot possibly be > >construed as having taken responsibility for the result as a Faithful > >Rendition of the original. Similarly, if we (as a WG) do not know > >whether XInclude process is licensed by the XInclude > standard, we must > >not imply that the results obtained are correct. > > C'mon. Of course the XInclude specification licences its use. > An XInclude-aware processor provides such a service. > Would you suggest that because XHTML does not specifically > licence the use of GRDDL then we cannot trust any graphs > yielded from XHTML documents? Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger! :) I was merely observing that different WG members (and clearly others outside the WG as well) had conflicting opinions about whether XInclude expansion was indeed licensed in this case. So unless the WG chooses to make a decision about whether or not XInclude expansion is licensed in this case -- bearing in mind that the TAG is already addressing exactly this question in issue xmlFunctions-34[1] -- then it seems most prudent to me to have the test cases be neutral about it. That's all I was suggesting. > >1. issue xmlFunctions-34: > >http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#xmlFunctions-34 David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Saturday, 16 June 2007 21:37:00 UTC