- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:59:07 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 14:08 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] > My understanding is the the GRDDL WG position is that GRDDL is neutral > with respect to such XML preprocessing, e.g. a GRDDL aware agent may > process an XPath nodeset before or after xinclude processing, and the > issue of whether to perform such processing is deferred to XProc WG and > to the TAG. > > To better reflect this, I suggest the sentence: > > "Whether or not processing of XInclude, XML Validity, XML Schema > Validity, XML Signatures or XML Decryption take place is > implementation-defined" > > be changed to > > "Whether or not processing of XInclude, XML Validity, XML Schema > Validity, XML Signatures or XML Decryption take place is as defined in > other recommendations and by implementation-specific behaviour" I'm persuaded by your rationale, but I made a slightly different edit: -<p>This specification is purposely silent on the question of which XML +<p>This specification is 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 +unspecified. 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 @@ -2317,6 +2317,11 @@ <pre><!-- next line --> $Log: spec.html,v $ +Revision 1.263 2007/06/13 14:56:26 connolly +to reflect the postponed status of #issue-faithful-infoset, +take "purposely" out and change implementation-defined +to "unspecified" + -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 14:59:12 UTC