Re: F2F Meeting Minutes

Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> > Brian McBride wrote:
> [...]
> > It was suggested that parseType="Literal" could be dropped but Ron
> > Daniel and Eric Miller spoke up that there are users who use it. It
> > was suggested that the parser adding namespace definitions to the
> > literal might break an XML signature. Concern was raised over entities
> > in the literal. After discussion it was concluded that we needed to
> > investigate the applicability of the XML fragments spec.
> 
> That's unclear, if not inaccurate.
> 
> I, for one, did not agree that we *need* to investigate
> the applicability of the XML fragments spec; as I said,
> there's a perfectly reasonable design (using triples all the
> way down) that does not depend on XML fragments in any way.
> 
> Moreover, I don't recall the chair actually explicitly asking
> that question of the group.

I have reviewed the IRC log for that segment of the meeting and can
find no support there for a statement that the WG reached any conclusion.
I'll amend the last sentence you quote to:

  The existence of the xml fragments work was noted.

unless you have a preferred alternative wording.

Brian