RE: Xinclude word-smithing

This is interesting.  This significantly changes the tenor of the
dbooth-3 ambiguity issue, because it suggests that the implementation
does *not* have license to arbitrarily apply such pre-processing, which
was exactly the point of the XInclude example in issue-dbooth-3:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/007
8.html
It does not solve the whole ambiguity problem, but it is definitely a
step in the right direction.

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-grddl-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-grddl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:59 AM
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: GRDDL Working Group
> Subject: Re: Xinclude word-smithing
> 
> 
> 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 Friday, 15 June 2007 01:47:11 UTC