- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:32:45 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On 23/09/06, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 23:10 +0200, Danny Ayers wrote: > > I just ran into a little issue with the code I'm working on: if the > > source doc doesn't contain any GRDDLable statements, > > > > http://www.w3.org/2003/12/rdf-in-xhtml-xslts/grokCC.xsl > > > > - produces no results, as in not XML. This trips up the subsequent > > RDF/XML parser. It's not actually a blank doc (with the implementation > > I'm using), it's got the <?xml... prolog. > > > > So there's the question of whether, assuming the target format is > > RDF/XML, the result should be valid RDF/XML whether or not anything > > was found. I dunno, it'd have saved me a few LOC. Thoughts? > > One could say that the source document is outside the dialect > that grokCC is intended to be used with. i.e. the document > says "I'm a document in the grokCC dialect" when it's not. > So the bug is in the source document. > > On the other hand, it's not much trouble to enhance grokCC.xsl > so that it works as you expected in more cases. So you > could consider this a bug in grokCC.xsl. Hmm, both seem reasonable - the first nicer in principle, the second nicer in practice. It's not a pressing point, but I guess worth bearing in mind when it comes to testing. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2006 09:32:52 UTC