- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:58:01 -0600
- To: Ian Davis <Ian.Davis@talis.com>, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 09:45 +0000, Ian Davis wrote: > [...] There is no > provision in the existing schemas for extension elements and changing > the schemas to accommodate RDF would require an extended international > standardisation effort, likely to take many years. Well, that makes the case pretty well. I'm interested to know if that convinces all the implementors to add it. I contacted Dave Beckett in IRC, and he seems willing. http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2007-02-06#T15-25-46 Likewise Dom for the W3C XSLT-based GRDDL service. Chime seems concerned about WG bandwidth to "digest any complications". I can sympathize with that; I don't see bandwidth in my own schedule for testing an implementation work. Brian, I'm very interested to know the HP/Jena position on whether this feature is worth adding. It seems entirely likely that the testing effort will fall to you. Jeremy seems to be cranking out tests faster than I can even look them over; if you can work with him to build some tests for this feature and use your newly established CVS-powers to migrate them to the WG test suite, that would probably make the sale. I haven't seen any technical argument that says this feature shouldn't go in; just some hesitation about WG bandwidth, IETF liaison overhead, etc. I can sympathize with an argument to postpone this feature on the basis of those costs. But I haven't seen any argument that the feature is not The Right Thing, yet. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 17:58:08 UTC