- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:11:52 -0400
- To: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- Cc: "public-grddl-wg" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Chimezie, Good example and great questions! > My (mostly rhetorical) question is which of the GRDDL specifications > (including the current editor's draft and the various proposals)?: > > 1. Can support both usecases Existing spec: No. Proposal 1c: Yes as written, but no for the inverse of Chime's example Proposal 2d: Yes. (Transform could detect the Xinclude) Proposal 3c: Depends on xmlFunctions-34 decision. > 2. Will be in compliance with the xmlFunctions-34 resolution Existing spec: Yes Proposal 1c: Yes Proposal 2d: Yes/no. The xmlFunctions-34 decision would not apply. Proposal 3c: Yes > 3. Can be subject to the eventual XML Processing Model specification as > a way (independent of GRDDL) for "an author, consumer, or application to > guide this process" [1] Existing spec: Unclear. Depends on spec interpretation. Proposal 1c: Yes. Proposal 2d: Yes. Proposal 3c: Yes. 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 Wednesday, 27 June 2007 15:12:16 UTC