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

Re: GRDDL-aware agents (Was Re: "GRDDL Agents" ...) (#issue-conformance-labels)

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:34:22 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

At 03:06 PM 2/20/2007 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>I still think that step 2, which states "Apply each transformation to 
>>obtain a GRDDL result."
>>should say something about the fact that it might not be possible to 
>>apply transformations
>>if, for example, the transformation relies on software that is not 
>>available -- such as awk(1)
>>on a Windows box. I suppose that most people will recognize that a GRDDL 
>>agent cannot do
>>what it cannot do, but it would be nice to see some acknowledgement of 
>>that fact in the
>>discussion of a what a GRDDL Agent "should" do.
>I think the text that Jeremy contributed touched on that... yes... well, 
>something close...
>the spec currently includes...
>"Some implementations of the transform language may provide nonstandard 
>facilities for the direct loading and execution of other programming 
>language code. For example, an XSLT implementation may provide a method of 
>calling Java code. Such facilities are quite obviously open to substantial 
>abuse. GRDDL transforms should not make use of such features. Besides 
>being totally implementation-specific, they are also likely to be 
>unavailable in secure implementations of the transformation langauge."
>Maybe it could be adapted more directly into step 2, but I'm kinda out of 
>wordsmithing energy for today.

I understand and sympathize.

Perhaps Step 2 could say:

         Selectively apply any or all discovered transformations to obtain 
GRDDL results.
         [N.B. Selection may be guided by the agent's capabilities, local 
security policies
         and possibly user/client intervention.]

Does that work for everybody? Dan? Chime?

I think that it expresses just enough to be meaningful and helpful
without getting bogged down in details that are not within our remit.


Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 22:32:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:10 UTC