Issues

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
• issue-tx-element: is there a way to push the grddl:transformation attribute down from the document element to individual elements without breaking the chain of authority?

  POSTPONED 2007-01-17

  See RDF 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 discussion 2006-12-28

  CLOSED in 2007-01-24 discussion

• faithful-infoset: what infoset to use as the input to GRDDL transformations? do XInclude?

  Reconsidered and postponed in 2007-06-06 discussion.

  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

  including:

  • 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 element (9 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 2007-02-21 discussion: 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

• issue-http-header-links: should links expressed in HTTP headers be supported?

  initially closed in 2007-02-07 discussion; after consideration of use case, RESOLVED: to add the GRDDL header to the GRDDL spec, per IanD's proposal contingent on IETF registration of Profile header, and on succesful test experience

  reconsidered in light of Connolly 21 Feb and postponed in 28 Feb discussion: postpone the issue, since a URI-based linking feature in HTTP such as the Profile header field is not yet stable/ratified/standardized

  • mnot's draft (expired; ISOC latest version)
  • RFC2068, containing the BCP Link spec, cited from
  • 2.1.62. Header field: Link of HTTP Header Field Registrations RFC4229 December 2005, which is the reference for Link in the...
  • permanent header registry, which was established by IETF consensus recorded in Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields September 2004

  see also test experience report by jjc 7 Feb

  raised by Connolly 11Sep; sketch 31 Jan by Ian Davis

$Log: issues.html,v $
Revision 1.1  2007/06/20 14:26:26  connolly
migrate issues list out of editor's draft