Re: Proposed changes to address issue-dbooth-3 (ambiguity)

Advocacy:
(still noting that we do not have an HP position as yet ...)

It seems strange to propose a change that supposedly is motivated to 
better control variability, that, actually, for the transforms that we 
have experience with, increases variability.

The heart of the contradiction lies with the #which-langs issue.

David claims reduced variability for transforms written in perl or using 
XProc. I believe:
a) we have no examples of such transforms
b) we have decided that such transforms, while interesting, and ones 
that we think may develop in the future, are not in-scope for this 
version of GRDDL

I have demonstrated increased variability for transforms written in XSLT 
1.0.

====

I think in general, that late design changes are usually bad design changes.

This is a design change - the arguments in its favour have some merit - 
but they are largely theoretical, rather than based on implementation 
experience. For the class of transforms for which we have experience, 
the current design gives less variability, which, in the terms of the 
original comment, seems to be better.

Jeremy

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England