RE: Proposed changes to address issue-dbooth-3 (ambiguity)

> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com] 
> 
> 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. [ . . . ]
> 
> No it didn't.
> 
> As is not uncommon practice, it put the namespace in a 
> default attibute.

Okay, I should have been more precise: it put a namespace that
*indicated* a GRDDL transformation inside a default attribute.

> 
> 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.

This example illustrates variability both in the "transformation
determination" step and the "transformation application" step.  The
variability in the "transformation determination" step would be the same
whether or not the proposed change is made, and the variability in the
"transformation application" step could be controlled if the propoosed
change were made.  

So in this sense this example is also a good illustration of the fact
that the proposed change would be clearly inferior to a change that
would also eliminate variability in the "transformation determination"
step.  I'm working on an alternate proposal that would remove that
variability also.


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.

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 18:43:20 UTC