W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Some spec comments (to .xsl or not to .xsl?)

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:54:07 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0702200954i1469b95cj53b550334b352602@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>, "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

On 19/02/07, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:33 AM, McBride, Brian wrote:
> > Section 2 example
> > [[
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/getAuthor.xsl"
> >>
> > ]]
> >
> > Might that better be
> >   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/getAuthor
> > i.e. drop the commitment to xsl.
>
> Perhaps, but then the test wouldn't run from the local
> filesystem. Oops... it already doesn't run from the local
> filesystem because of the absolute URI; I moved
> it to testlist2 for that reason.
>
> While I often prefer to keep the .xsl out
> of the URI, in this "hello world" example, I'm inclined
> to keep things somewhat more concrete.
>
> Other opinions?

Sounds reasonable. No need to mention that:

<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/getAuthor.xsl>

might have a Javascript representation...


-- 

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 17:54:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT