Re: #faithful-infoset wordsmithing

Thanks

Jeremy

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 23:02 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> Summary:
>> - suggested change to mention xmlFunctions-34 in GRDDL spec
>> - suggested changes in response to Chime's @@s, also concerning the WG
>> decision to postpone #faithful-infoset
> 
> responding only re the spec...
> 
>> ==========
>>
>> I note that Chime has a number of @@s wondering where to mention the new
>> resolution. This messages makes some concrete suggestions.
>>
>> I wonder too whether the decision should have resulted in some other
>> minor changes to the GRDDL specification text, for example, the new
>> resolution explicitly mentions tag issue xmlFunctions-34, could this be
>> worked into the relevant paragraph like this:
>>
>> 1. In section 6, in paragraph 4 change the sentence ending "is
>> unspecified" to:
>>
>> i.e.
>> [[
>> is unspecified; this specification anticipates that the
>> resolution of TAG issue
>> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#xmlFunctions-34">
>> xmlFunctions-34
>> </a>
>> will provide further
>> clarification and guidance.
>> ]]
> 
> I put something like that in the status section.
> 
> [[
> GRDDL is intended to contribute to addressing Web Architecture issues
> such as RDFinXHTML-35, namespaceDocument-8, and xmlFunctions-34 as well
> as issues postponed by the RDF Core working group such as
> rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf and faq-html-compliance. In particular,
> the GRDDL Working Group has postponed issue-faithful-infoset, and
> anticipates that the resolution of TAG issue xmlFunctions-34 will
> provide further clarification and guidance.
> ]]
>  -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 1.272
> 
> (oops; that last comma isn't grammatical.)
> 
>> 2. While I like Dan's 'unspecified', I still think it may be helpful to
>> be a bit clearer, I haven't really understood what was wrong with text I
>> have suggested before such as, changing the same "is unspecified" to
>>
>> [[
>> is as defined in other Recommendations, but otherwise unspecified
>> ]]
>>
>> (the vagueness about which Recommendations is deliberate: I think we are
>> more likely to have consensus around standards-driven behaviour, than
>> about precisely which standards!)
> 
> References to the Working Group, W3C process, and that sort of thing
> are fine in the status section, but I don't think they have any
> place in the body of the spec.
> 
> 

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