RE: Xinclude word-smithing

At 01:59 PM 6/15/2007 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:

>Actually, I think it is *important* to change explanation of the
>XInclude test cases.  The test cases are supposed to be illustrating
>conformant GRDDL-aware agent behavior.  But it is quite clear that there
>are differences of opinion about whether the XInclude expansion is
>licensed or not, and the TAG has not yet decided.  So as a WG, I do not
>think we should try to take a position on what the correct (licensed)
>behavior of XInclude should be.
>
>If a GRDDL-aware agent changes all 5's to 7's (perhaps at the explicit
>license of the user), the document publisher cannot possibly be
>construed as having taken responsibility for the result as a Faithful
>Rendition of the original.  Similarly, if we (as a WG) do not know
>whether XInclude process is licensed by the XInclude standard, we must
>not imply that the results obtained are correct.

C'mon. Of course the XInclude specification licences its use.
An XInclude-aware processor provides such a service.
Would you suggest that because XHTML does not specifically
licence the use of GRDDL then we cannot trust any graphs
yielded from XHTML documents?

>I suggest deleting mention of Faithful Renditions, and adding something
>like the following to both XInclude examples:
>[[
>At this time, <b>the GRDDL Working Group does not know whether this
>output should be considered correct.</b>  The Working Group hopes that
>resolution of the W3C TAG's issue xmlFunctions-34[1] will clarify this.
>]]
>
>1. issue xmlFunctions-34:
>http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#xmlFunctions-34

At least one member of the WG disagrees with the suggested edit.
The TAG will resolve its issues on its schedule and GRDDL WG
on its own.

Received on Saturday, 16 June 2007 20:57:07 UTC