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

It is my belief that we have done a satisfactory job and that "Faithful 
Infoset"
represents a 'caveat scriptor' for transformation writers. It is my further 
contention
that 'Faithful Infoset' is a feature that can be exploited by clever 
transformations.

At 10:25 AM 5/25/2007 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>Murray Maloney wrote:
>>"Faithful infoset" may seem like a bug or a glaring hole in the spec,
>>but if you look at it just right, it is a feature.
>
>Does that mean that in your view we have done a satisfactory job which we 
>do not believe may need review at some point in the future, as opposed to, 
>what I thought was the case, that we have done the best we can, given 
>limitations, but that for GRDDL 2.0 (if such a thing ever happens) this 
>should certainly be looked at again?
>
>The reason for asking is that in the first case (a satisfactory job) the 
>record is correct (a closed issue), whereas in the second case (as good as 
>we could do, but unsatisfactory) a postponed issue would be a better record.
>
>I was not present when the decision was made, and do not wish to argue 
>about the content of the decision - I am merely trying to ensure that the 
>record is correct.
>
>Jeremy
>
>
>--
>Hewlett-Packard Limited
>registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
>Registered No: 690597 England