W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (#issue-faithful-infoset )

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 09:38:36 +0100
Message-ID: <465D380C.8050509@hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, public-grddl-wg@w3.org, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>, dbooth@hp.com

Dan please clarify

(either "yes" or perhaps "no" and some other text from Harry that does 
not reflect WG position)

I take the comment "Please be more conservative in representing the 
position of the WG" to refer principally to:

1) Minimize XML preprocessing by not having the source document use 
XInclude or schema validation.
2) Have only one representation of the information resource given by the 
URI be available, and so not use content negotiation.
3) Restrict GRDDL transformations to deterministic finite state 
automata. 4) If an author wishes to guarantee that a XML document is 
reflected by some particular RDF document, that they author not use 
GRDDL be serve RDF directly and specify that using rel="alternate" in 
XHTML to link to a RDF document in the representation or serve it via 
content negotiation in terms of XML docuemnts with URIs (Are there other 
ways for an XML document to directly link to an RDF document?)

On my reading, the rest of the message did seem to reflect agreed WG 


Dan Connolly wrote:
> Harry Halpin wrote:
>> [...]
>> Would this satisfy this comment? If not, please specify what would 
>> satisfy your comment, if possible without breaking WebArch by 
>> disallowing conneg and without forcing the GRDDL WG to develop its own 
>> XML processing model.
> Those are not the only choices. Please be more conservative
> in representing the position of the WG when responding to
> comments, Harry.
> I think it would have been quite straightforward for the GRDDL
> spec to specify that the XPath datamodel it works on is the one
> that results from running the bytes that come over the wire
> thru an XML processor, with no XInclude, no DTD default-attribute
> filling, etc.
> That's a perfectly coherent option; it's the one I advocated.
> It's just not the one that the WG chose.
> I don't see sufficient new information in David Booth's
> comments to re-consider the WG decision of 2007-02-07
> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-faithful-infoset
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/att-0088/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#item04 
> So I won't argue the point further. And unless you're
> re-opening the issue, Harry, I ask that you don't either.

Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 08:39:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:29 UTC