Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > > There are two separable issues here: > > 1. Whether test #grddlonrdf conforms to the GRDDL spec as written. AFAICT it does *not* conform to the GRDDL spec as written, so in my view the working group has a responsibility in an erratum to either fix it or delete it. > Could you clarify exactly why the test violates the spec as written? I agree, if it violates the spec then this should be noted in erratum.. > 2. Whether the GRDDL spec should be changed, to make the result of an RDF document be *only* the RDF that is directly specified in that document. This would represent a (slight) design change, and thus it is not a candidate for an erratum. In my view, it would have to wait until GRDDL 2.0. :( > Likely the case, and hopefully TAG will get around to xmlFunctions-34 beforehand. > 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. > -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 19:58:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2008 19:58:01 GMT