Another test suggesting change in the spec

I suggest, at the end of section 4,
  immediately before the section 5 heading, the following informative 
paragraph, clarifying the scope of the previous two normative statements.

While these mechanisms are intended primarily
for valid XHTML family documents, they also
can be used with invalid XHTML family documents:
a validation error does not negate the applicability
of these mechanisms.


Working through the pending list, I came up with:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html xmlns=""
    g:transformation="two" >
   <head profile="">
     <title>HTML Doc with grddl:transformation Attribute</title>

     <h1>HTML Doc with grddl:transformation Attribute</h1>

     <p>GRDDL results for this entry come both from this inline
       <a rel="GRDDL
       transformation" href="one">one</a>,
       and the transformation on the root element.</p>


My reader gets the following result:

the first triple being the output of the transform "two" specified with 
the grrdl:transformation attribute.
The second being the output of the transform "one" specified with the 
inline <a> element.

I think this is the intent; but the GRDDL spec has a natural reading in 
which the "one" transform is not licensed, because all the relevant 
sections licensing that transform are headed 'valid' HTML etc.
e.g. "Rules for GRDDL with valid XHTML". This document is not valid 
XHTML, and so, one could argue, that the rule does not apply.

I suggest that such an argument is not intended.

Hence the suggested text above.


Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:34:39 UTC