Re: Proposed changes to address issue-dbooth-3 (ambiguity)

Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
> Yes, and as I pointed out, that document was designed with GRDDL in mind
> and *chose* to put a GRDDL transformation inside a default attribute.
> This proposed change does *not* attempt to prevent people from either
> shooting themselves in the foot or from producing variable results if
> that is what they wish to do.  

No it didn't.

As is not uncommon practice, it put the namespace in a default attibute.

It also put the grddl namespace in a default attribute, in order to 
permit the document author to specify a further transform. Seems like a 
very plausible migration from a DTD based XML usage, to a GRDDL aware usage:
- keep using a DTD
- modify the DTD to allow document specific GRDDL transform
- add a namespace transform

The example is not intended to be a baroque example to artificially 
construct a hole, but a useful simplification of likely real-world usage.

Jeremy




-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England