- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:57:07 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
GRDDL Processor is defined here:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm#GRDDLProcessor
I thought we wanted to use consistent vocabulary in the spec, the
use-cases, and the primer, therefore my use of the word "GRDDL Processor."
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 01:58 +0100, Harry Halpin wrote:
>> Note this is just me discharging my duty, and the WG has still has
>> consensus that the spec. does not *need* changing. However, I think in
>> the interests of clarity after this sentence:
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> There should be this sentence:
>>
>> "GRDDL processors SHOULD support XSLT 1.0 and MAY support other
>> transformation languages."
>
> Adding just that one sentence doesn't make sense, since
> "GRDDL procoessor" isn't a term used nor defined in the spec.
> (it occurs only in the issues list.)
>
> So I'm not inclined to make that change.
>
>
>
--
--harry
Harry Halpin
Informatics, University of Edinburgh
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 11:57:17 UTC