Re: An alternative usecase to consider for the ambiguity proposals

Chimezie,

Good example and great questions!

> My (mostly rhetorical) question is which of the GRDDL specifications
> (including the current editor's draft and the various proposals)?:
> 
> 1. Can support both usecases

Existing spec: No.
Proposal 1c: Yes as written, but no for the inverse of Chime's example
Proposal 2d: Yes.  (Transform could detect the Xinclude)
Proposal 3c: Depends on xmlFunctions-34 decision.

> 2. Will be in compliance with the xmlFunctions-34 resolution

Existing spec: Yes
Proposal 1c: Yes
Proposal 2d: Yes/no.  The xmlFunctions-34 decision would not apply.
Proposal 3c: Yes

> 3. Can be subject to the eventual XML Processing Model specification
as
> a way (independent of GRDDL) for "an author, consumer, or application
to
> guide this process" [1]

Existing spec: Unclear.  Depends on spec interpretation.
Proposal 1c: Yes.
Proposal 2d: Yes.
Proposal 3c: Yes.

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 Wednesday, 27 June 2007 15:12:16 UTC