W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Proposal 3c (compromise) to address the ambiguity issue

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:18:19 -0400
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1182863900.7105.13.camel@otherland>

> 3. Change the description of the XInclude test cases as previously
> suggested by Jeremy.  Specifically, change the sentence beginning "In
> particular, ... " to the following:
> [[
> In particular, the output illustrates a situation where the XML
> processor invokes XInclude processing at a low-level and presents the
> expanded <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#processing">result
> infoset</a> <a href="#ref-XInclude">[XINCLUDE]</a> to the GRDDL-aware
> agent.
> Note that most browsers do not perform the XInclude, and
> thus their behavior does not correspond with the output shown.  This
> pair of tests anticipate 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 guidance concerning them.
> ]]

I made the change to "In particular, the output illustrates a
situation .."

RCS file: /w3ccvs/WWW/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html,v
description:
----------------------------
revision 1.52
date: 2007/06/26 13:14:43;  author: cogbuji;  state: Exp;  lines: +6 -4
changed 'corresponds' to 'illustrates' - per D.Booth's suggestion
----------------------------

However, I didn't add the note about what browsers do as GRDDL is a
mechanism for web 'agents' in general not browsers specifically.  The
emphasis on the suggestion in the GRDDL specification to use XProc (in
the "Testing Faithful Infosets" section) seemed sufficient and more
relevant than the TAG issue as XProc is specifically *chartered* to
deliver a Recommendation Track document which addresses fine-grained XML
processing and we have commented [1] on the risk (WRT GRDDL) associated
with not addressing this.

[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Jun/0046.html

>  - Making forward reference to a spec that is not yet published is
> somewhat unusual, but not unprecedented.  For example, the RDF Concepts
> document did this in reference to the non-yet-published IRI spec:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref

Is it the case that the resolution of the TAGs issue will result in a
(TAG-authored) recommendation track document? Seems unlikely given the
fact that the XProc WG has this responsibility placed squarely in their
lap.

-- 
Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org


===================================




Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top 3 hospitals in
America by U.S.News & World Report. Visit us online at
http://www.clevelandclinic.org for a complete listing of
our services, staff and locations.


Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 13:18:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:50 GMT