- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 09:24:50 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
It is my belief that we have done a satisfactory job and that "Faithful Infoset" represents a 'caveat scriptor' for transformation writers. It is my further contention that 'Faithful Infoset' is a feature that can be exploited by clever transformations. At 10:25 AM 5/25/2007 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Murray Maloney wrote: >>"Faithful infoset" may seem like a bug or a glaring hole in the spec, >>but if you look at it just right, it is a feature. > >Does that mean that in your view we have done a satisfactory job which we >do not believe may need review at some point in the future, as opposed to, >what I thought was the case, that we have done the best we can, given >limitations, but that for GRDDL 2.0 (if such a thing ever happens) this >should certainly be looked at again? > >The reason for asking is that in the first case (a satisfactory job) the >record is correct (a closed issue), whereas in the second case (as good as >we could do, but unsatisfactory) a postponed issue would be a better record. > >I was not present when the decision was made, and do not wish to argue >about the content of the decision - I am merely trying to ensure that the >record is correct. > >Jeremy > > >-- >Hewlett-Packard Limited >registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN >Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 25 May 2007 13:41:57 UTC