Re: #faithful-infoset wordsmithing

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 23:02 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> Summary:
> - suggested change to mention xmlFunctions-34 in GRDDL spec
> - suggested changes in response to Chime's @@s, also concerning the WG
> decision to postpone #faithful-infoset

responding only re the spec...

> 
> ==========
> 
> I note that Chime has a number of @@s wondering where to mention the new
> resolution. This messages makes some concrete suggestions.
> 
> I wonder too whether the decision should have resulted in some other
> minor changes to the GRDDL specification text, for example, the new
> resolution explicitly mentions tag issue xmlFunctions-34, could this be
> worked into the relevant paragraph like this:
> 
> 1. In section 6, in paragraph 4 change the sentence ending "is
> unspecified" to:
> 
> i.e.
> [[
> is unspecified; this specification anticipates that the
> resolution of TAG issue
> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#xmlFunctions-34">
> xmlFunctions-34
> </a>
> will provide further
> clarification and guidance.
> ]]

I put something like that in the status section.

[[
GRDDL is intended to contribute to addressing Web Architecture issues
such as RDFinXHTML-35, namespaceDocument-8, and xmlFunctions-34 as well
as issues postponed by the RDF Core working group such as
rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf and faq-html-compliance. In particular,
the GRDDL Working Group has postponed issue-faithful-infoset, and
anticipates that the resolution of TAG issue xmlFunctions-34 will
provide further clarification and guidance.
]]
 -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 1.272

(oops; that last comma isn't grammatical.)

> 2. While I like Dan's 'unspecified', I still think it may be helpful to
> be a bit clearer, I haven't really understood what was wrong with text I
> have suggested before such as, changing the same "is unspecified" to
> 
> [[
> is as defined in other Recommendations, but otherwise unspecified
> ]]
> 
> (the vagueness about which Recommendations is deliberate: I think we are
> more likely to have consensus around standards-driven behaviour, than
> about precisely which standards!)

References to the Working Group, W3C process, and that sort of thing
are fine in the status section, but I don't think they have any
place in the body of the spec.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 16:44:41 UTC