- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:45:57 -0400
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
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