- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:03:37 -0400
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 09:52 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 10:26 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > [...] > > Define a class xhtml:Document defined (necessarily and sufficiently) as > > the class of documents which have a jc:validWRT relationship between > > them and a W3C sanctioned XHTML DTD > > That excludes the input document in the test case currently in question. > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/html-and-grddl-xform-attr Yes, that was the intention of defining it this way, to call this out explicitely. > > jjc objects to that objection, with good reason. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Apr/0129.html Following the suggestion of (a) - which I agree with - would *not* require that membership in xhtml:Document is a requirement for calculating GRDDL results WRT to a a[@rel='transformation'] | link[@rel='transformation']. > And actually, DTDs funamentally don't fit the jc:validWRT model. > xml:valid(doc) is a one-place predicate, and it's only > true when doc includes (by value or by reference) a DTD. I don't follow. If it doesn't reference a DTD, there is no jc:validWRT assertion, if it does and it is valid WRT to the referenced DTD, there is. > It would be really nice if XML 1.0 had defined > a valid(doc, DTD) relationship, but it didn't. Yup.. a shame, but doesn't prevent me from coining one to help clarify the problem with the notion of a 'family of XHTML documents' -- Chimezie Ogbuji Lead Systems Analyst Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Cleveland Clinic Foundation 9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26 Cleveland, Ohio 44195 Office: (216)444-8593 ogbujic@ccf.org =================================== Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top 3 hospitals in America by U.S.News & World Report. Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for a complete listing of our services, staff and locations. Confidentiality Note: This message is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. Thank you.
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 15:03:50 UTC