Re: Faithful Infoset paragraph

On Jan 30, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Murray Maloney wrote:
>
> OK. Reading Henry's article helped. Here is my stab at Faithful 
> Infoset.
> I am sure that it could benefit from aggressive editing. I just don't
> have the time or energy today.

It was enough to get me started. I can see room for improvement still, 
but
I can live with this...

[[
When an information resource is represented by an XML document, the 
corresponding XPath data model is somewhat under-determined, depending 
on, for example, whether an agent elaborates inclusions, parameter 
entities, fixed and default attributes, or checks digital signatures. 
Put another way, if an author takes responsibility for the information 
in an XML document, for what information exactly is the author taking 
responsibility? And how can the author ensure that a GRDDL 
transformation is able to meet GRDDL's Faithful Rendition assurance?

This specification is purposely silent on the question of which XML 
processors are employed by or for GRDDL-aware agents. Whether or not 
processing of XInclude, XML Validity, XML Schema Validity, XML 
Signatures or XML Decryption take place is implementation-defined. 
There is no universal expectation that an XSLT processor will call on 
such processing before executing a GRDDL transformation. Therefore, it 
is suggested that GRDDL transformations be written so that they perform 
all expected pre-processing, including processing of related DTDs, 
Schemas and namespaces. Such measure can be avoided for documents which 
do not require such pre-processing to yield an infoset that is 
faithful. That is, for documents which do not reference XInclude, DTDs, 
XML Schemas and so on.
]]
  -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#txforms
   1.197  2007/02/02 03:13:46

It fits neatly before the paragraph about XProc.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 2 February 2007 03:18:05 UTC