W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Javascript and GRDDL [#issue-whichlangs]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 22:28:42 -0600
To: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefanom@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1172896122.26928.77.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 17:55 -0800, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
[...]
> 
> I've elaborated and commented more on my blog and added some
> constructive criticism at the end.
> 
> http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/100/

"stop saying that GRDDL transformation can be defined in any language;
it might be true in theory, but in practice is hardly useful if those
transformations cannot respect the above three conditions;"

How is that different from what we already say?

"Transformations should have available representations in
widely-supported formats. We expect most consumers to support XSLT
version 1[XSLT1] for the foreseeable future, though XSLT2[XSLT2]
deployment is increasing. While javascript, C, or any other programming
language technically expresses the relevant information, XSLT is
specifically designed to express XML to XML transformations and has some
good safety characteristics."
 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#txforms


I don't have strong feelings about this; we did discuss the possibility
of limiting the options to just XSLT. And I generally think untested
hooks are evil. The use cases for javascript haven't been fleshed
out as much as we hoped. But what we've got in the spec seems fairly
reasonable to me, and it's not clear that we really have more
information now than when we made our decision.
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-grddl-wg-minutes#item06


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2007 04:28:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:02 UTC