- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:58:10 +0000
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- CC: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "public-grddl-wg@w3.org" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Harry Halpin wrote: > Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: >> There are two separable issues here: >> >> 1. Whether test #grddlonrdf conforms to the GRDDL spec as written. AFAICT it does *not* conform to the GRDDL spec as written, so in my view the working group has a responsibility in an erratum to either fix it or delete it. >> > Could you clarify exactly why the test violates the spec as written? I > agree, if it violates the spec then this should be noted in erratum.. I think I have partially done this on David's behalf. I have just shown, I believe, that the comments associated with the two tests are incorrect. David has previously argued that the use of #rule_rdfxbase in the two tests is incorrect, since the presence of the grddl:transformation attribute on the rdf:RDF element is not permitted by the RDF Syntax specification, and so the input documents are not RDF/XML despite initial appearance. I believe that argument to be correct but in an overly pedantic way (sorry David). Given that we could, and in my view should, fix the comments in two (closely related) errata, we could also consider David's argument, and I would hope that making the tests informative may be an easy way to acknowledge David's argument while keeping everyone else on board, (at least me!) A very minimal entry in the erratum document would be the two comments are misleading, possibly suggesting a textual correction of deleting the comments. This would not address David's point though. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 12:58:51 UTC