- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 21:52:54 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, public-grddl-wg@w3.org
On May 13, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: > >>>> People are reading the SHOULD as a MUST. >>> >>> Really? I am not. > > To try to echo your argument about SHOULD > > SHOULD means that we MUST have to have a good motivations for not > doing so and MUST understand the ramifications of the decision. > > The good motivation is: > - to not confuse OWL/XML document authors and/or implementors as to > what is the normative definition of the language [I think this is a reasonable variant.] > Ramifications are: > - OWL/XML will not be automatically readable by XSLT aware GRDDL > agents, but they will need to have special support. Where the special support might be selecting and downloading a third party XSLT, yes. > And in your judgement the 'good motivation' outweighs the > 'ramification'. I certainly think that this is good enough for outweighing the SHOULD, yes. > Have I expressed it about right? Pace complications, yes. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:53:42 UTC