Harry Halpin wrote: > > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> >> On 13 May 2008, at 15:56, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: >> > [snip] >> I believe that everyone else agrees that the GRDDL spec does *not* >> require an executable, downloadable specification of the >> transformation at the namespace document. > That's a bit strong. I think agreement of most of the remaining active > members (at least myself, Chime, David Booth, not sure about DanC and > Jeremy) of the GRDDL WG is that executable code, in particular XSLT, > would be useful, and there is no obvious use value in a non-executable > version. You can add my name to that list. I concur. {snip] BP>> From a marketing perspective, it feels like a bait and switch. I feel BP>> like I did due diligence and now am sandbagged. Proper specs *cannot* BP>> require people to interview members of the community to determine what BP>> conforming behavior is. That defeats the point! HH> No-one else in the community has ever brought up the point that the HH> GRDDL transformation could be non-executable. Thus, I think your HH> reading of the specification is unique. I am glad you have brought this HH> up, as no-one has thought this through before, and it is an intelligent HH> if unusual point. I also agree wholeheartedly with this point too.Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2008 13:14:57 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 May 2008 13:14:58 GMT