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

Re: How are correct, unambiguous results possible with implementation-defined XML pre-processing?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:34:31 +0100
Message-ID: <46556A37.4060601@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
CC: public-grddl-wg@w3.org, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>



My own view is that the GRDDL spec is not clear enough about faithful 
infoset not being wholly adequately resolved, but the resolution being a 
pragmatic decision based on what we felt we could realistically do.

I suggest we reopen it and postpone - perhaps with the same resolution, 
but restricted to this version of GRDDL, noting that it is an area where 
future work may be needed. In doing that we can also draw the postponed 
issue to the attention of the XProc WG, and formally give them the 
option of (partially) addressing it.



On David's specific question:
[[
But if the XML parser is permitted to expand the
xi:include directive, before my GRDDL transformation even sees it, then
I do not see any way to write my transformation such that it always
produces the correct results.  In other words, short of superceding the
GRDDL spec with GRDDL 2.0, I do not see how XProc or any other spec can
solve this problem.
]]

While I don't claim to understand XProc at all, it is at least possible 
for a spec other than GRDDL to say apply GRDDL to this XPath NodeSet, 
and if it does so, (at least some of) the ambiguity problems go away.

My view is the overall problem space is too difficult to address 
adequately, and the faithful infoset resolution is an appropriate 
response to the difficulties.

Jeremy


-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2007 10:34:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:49 GMT