- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:46:49 -0400
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>
BTW, I had not seen Henry Thompson's excellent write-up on "The elaborated infoset; A proposal" http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/elabInfoset.html when I wrote the following: > From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) > . . . > Why not permit the desired XML infoset treatment to > be easily specified explicitly? For example, for the > simple, non-namespace case, instead of defining the > grddl:transformation attribute, how about allowing the > author to choose between three attributes: > > - grddl:transformation, which might have standard > XML pipeline infoset semantics; > > - grddl:unprocessedTransformation, which might have > semantics of NO infoset preprocessing; and > > - grddl:ambiguousTransformation, which might have the > ambiguous semantics of the current GRDDL draft. If I had, I would have adopted Henry's terminology and talked about infoset "elaboration" instead of "preprocessing" (and called the second attribute grddl:unelaboratedTransformation instead of grddl:unprocessedTransformation), but my essential question remains the same. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 14:47:08 UTC