The following issues have been resolved by the Working Group:
- issue-whichlangs: which languages, if any, should GRDDL clients/processors be required to support? XSLT1? XSLT2? ECMAscript? closed 2006-08-30
- issue-output-formats: whether GRDDL transformations may produce RDF in a format other than RDF/XML. closed in 2006-12-06 discussion
discussed in the March 2006 SemWeb IG meeting; see irc notes
See also GRDDL extraction *to* RDFa Ben Adida (Friday, 8 September) and following, and comments on Sequential Transformations 20 Oct
See testlist1#atomttl1, i.e. "you may support turtle"
- issue-base-param: how the transformation
algorithm gets the base URI. closed in 2006-12-20 discussion
is there a way to push the grddl:transformation attribute down from
the document element to individual elements without breaking the
chain of authority?
in parts of XHTML documents 09 Mar 2004 and discussion of
trackback in an
18 March message.
- issue-html-nsdoc: what caching policy
should GRDDL-aware agents adopt for the XHTML namespace document?
Several early ones have a "never fetch it; there are no GRDDL
transformations there, so don't even look" policy.
See also #swig
- faithful-infoset: what
infoset to use as the input to GRDDL transformations? do XInclude?
Reconsidered and postponed in
closed in 2007-01-31 discussion
was split out from issue-mt-ns and closed in 2006-12-20 discussion; re-opened 10 Jan. See also: Testing Xinclude GRDDL Tests, Part 3 (which might move to part 1)
- issue-mt-ns: how
GRDDL interacts with XML and RDF media types
closed in 2007-02-07 discussion
the current rules address issue-mt-ns; in particular, the RDF/XML base case rule in the namespaces section
- how a GRDDL client interacts with a document whose root element is an XSLT literal result element (note jjc 7 Dec)
- how a GRDDL client interacts with an RDF document that has a root
element other than rdf:RDF. see Grddl
Squirrel 6 test cases, McBride, 9 Mar 2006
- whether RDF/XML statements labelled as application/xml constitute a
"document whose meaning includes the RDF statement ..." (9
Mar 2006 from McBride)
- what happens if data-view:transformation is given on an rdf:RDF root
Mar 2006 from McBride)
- issue-conformance-labels: which conformance labels, if any, should we have?
reconsidered 14 Feb in light of
comment on security considerations from Carroll 13 Feb and closed in
RESOLVED: to include "GRDDL-aware agent" as a conformance-label ...
previously, closed 2007-01-17:
use consistent vocabulary, but not use them as conformance labels; re-considered 14 Feb in light of comment on security considerations 13 Feb from Carroll
This issue list was maintained as part of
editor's draft until 20 June 2007; changes
since then include:
$Log: issues.html,v $
Revision 1.1 2007/06/20 14:26:26 connolly
migrate issues list out of editor's draft
Dan Connolly, GRDDL editor
$Revision: 1.1 $ of $Date: 2007/06/20 14:26:26 $