- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:34:31 +0100
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- CC: public-grddl-wg@w3.org, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
My own view is that the GRDDL spec is not clear enough about faithful infoset not being wholly adequately resolved, but the resolution being a pragmatic decision based on what we felt we could realistically do. I suggest we reopen it and postpone - perhaps with the same resolution, but restricted to this version of GRDDL, noting that it is an area where future work may be needed. In doing that we can also draw the postponed issue to the attention of the XProc WG, and formally give them the option of (partially) addressing it. On David's specific question: [[ But if the XML parser is permitted to expand the xi:include directive, before my GRDDL transformation even sees it, then I do not see any way to write my transformation such that it always produces the correct results. In other words, short of superceding the GRDDL spec with GRDDL 2.0, I do not see how XProc or any other spec can solve this problem. ]] While I don't claim to understand XProc at all, it is at least possible for a spec other than GRDDL to say apply GRDDL to this XPath NodeSet, and if it does so, (at least some of) the ambiguity problems go away. My view is the overall problem space is too difficult to address adequately, and the faithful infoset resolution is an appropriate response to the difficulties. Jeremy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2007 10:34:55 UTC