W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > September 2006

Re: Must clients use all transformations specified?

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:20:07 -0400 (EDT)
To: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.60.0609051209370.15724@joplin.bio.ri.ccf.org>

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Dan Connolly wrote:

>> However, I do think we should clarify that either the client should either:
>>
>> 1) If it can run a transforms, it runs the transform.
>>
>> 2) Or if can run a transform,  the client may or may not run the transform.
>
> I think the spec already says 2) clearly enough.

1>
> I think introducing conformance labels like "GRDDL client" is
> much more trouble than it's worth.

Than is my action item regarding defining such labels a moot point?

> I think specifying the meaning of documents and publishing
> examples and test cases is sufficient (as well as necessary).
>
> Given the security issues around running code published
> in the Web, which transformations to run clearly must
> be left up to local policy, no?

I'm not sure.  I mean, I can see the security issues being a prime factor 
in having the 'client' decide which transformations to run, but assuming 
there were no issues with 'local' policy, I don't understand how you can 
claim the transformations (identified by the publisher) 'preserve' the 
author's meaning but leave it up to the client which transformations to 
run.

Perhaps, a clear usecase as to the value of choosing to only run a subset 
(besides security considerations) would help me understand the value in 
this.  Looking at the xml-stylesheet processing instruction specification, 
it doesn't seem to leave the matter up to the client.

[[[

Multiple xml-stylesheet processing instructions are also allowed with 
exactly the same semantics as with LINK REL="stylesheet".

]]]

I'm not aware of what is expectred of the client from a 
link/@rel='stylesheet' in an XHTML document (does it have the option to 
not apply the stylesheet?).


> Consider an agent that has a hard-coded list of profile
> and/or transformation URIs; its policy is to execute
> those transformations and no others.
> For example, a big data aggregator (think: yahoo local, ...)
> might publish a list of 20 profiles and transformations
> (hCard, eRDF, ...) and offer to aggregate data that uses
> those profiles. They might add new ones over time, after
> carefully reviewing and caching the published XSLT implementation,
> or by re-implementing the transformation in C locally.
>
> Is anybody interested to make a test case to illustrate
> that case?

I might, mostly because I'm concerned that there is a conflict with 
claiming the transformation preserve the document's meaning (which is a 
vague statement in itself) and not mandating that all referred 
transformations should be run (barring local such policies)

Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2006 16:20:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:08 UTC