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

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

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:03:24 -0500 (EST)
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>, GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.60.0702201340280.20412@joplin.bio.ri.ccf.org>

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Danny Ayers wrote:
> 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...

<tongue-in-cheek-response intent='raise an issue'>

And what happens if a 'GRDDL-aware Agent' fetches the link and gets a 
Javscript mime-type? Is it obligated to apply the javascript 
transformation, does it have enough to know what a 'javascript' 
transformation entails (from the URL alone)? If it does nothing, is it 
violating what we are suggesting as a conformance label?...

</tongue-in-cheek-response>

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, 20 February 2007 19:03:39 GMT

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