RE: #faithful-infoset wordsmithing

> From: Dan Connolly
> [ . . . ]
> 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

This looks harmless, but I don't think it is enough by itself.  I think
it is important to mention it in the body also, as I explain below.

> [ . . . ]
> 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.

Please *do* mention TAG issue xmlFunctions-34 in the body, because that
makes it much clearer to the reader what questions we are hoping the
resolution of that TAG issue will provide "clarification and guidance"
about.  I think it is far more important to be clear than to avoid
mentioning it just for the sake of not looking odd.


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.