- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:09:42 +0100
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- CC: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > Yes, and as I pointed out, that document was designed with GRDDL in mind > and *chose* to put a GRDDL transformation inside a default attribute. > This proposed change does *not* attempt to prevent people from either > shooting themselves in the foot or from producing variable results if > that is what they wish to do. No it didn't. As is not uncommon practice, it put the namespace in a default attibute. It also put the grddl namespace in a default attribute, in order to permit the document author to specify a further transform. Seems like a very plausible migration from a DTD based XML usage, to a GRDDL aware usage: - keep using a DTD - modify the DTD to allow document specific GRDDL transform - add a namespace transform The example is not intended to be a baroque example to artificially construct a hole, but a useful simplification of likely real-world usage. Jeremy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 14:10:06 UTC