W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > April 2005

[Bug 1244] [XSLT 2.0] question about result-document/@href

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:06:45 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1DRDPR-0005XH-9T@wiggum.w3.org>


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WORKSFORME
            Summary|[XSLT 2.0] question about   |[XSLT 2.0] question about
                   |result-document/@href       |result-document/@href

------- Additional Comments From cmsmcq@w3.org  2005-04-28 18:06 -------
Thank you for the mail.  On closer examination, the Working
Group believes this is not so much a comment on the Last Call
Working Draft as a simple question, and so we are marking it

The answer to the question is:  it's implementation-dependent
which URI schemes an implementation can support in result
documents.  There is nothing in the spec, that is, which says
a processor may not support stylesheets like your example,
and also nothing which requires them to do so.  

In passing, one member of the WG observed that even if a 
processor does support your example, you may not want to do
things that way -- the XSLT processor may support sending
the document to the service, but presumably you'll want to
know what response the service sent back, which result-document
is not going to handle.

Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your 
issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing 
the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree 
with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. 
If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then 
also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish 
to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision 
to the Director, then change the status of the record to 
Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, 
we will assume you agree with the WG decision.

Thanks again.
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2005 18:06:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:23 UTC