W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > April to June 2002


From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:04:12 +0200
Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E6210602679D5D@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, xsl-editors@w3.org
Cc: rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Thanks for the comment. I think it's hard for us to be prescriptive about
this. An XSLT processor designed solely for use on TV set-top-boxes might
have no market requirement (or technical possibility) to write output to an
HTTP PUT destination, nor indeed to anywhere other than the TV screen. We
want language interoperability, but we can't assume that all processors
execute in the same kind of environment.

I don't mind, however, putting in some kind of note giving examples of the
sorts of URI that permit writing.

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> Sent: 29 April 2002 21:36
> To: xsl-editors@w3.org
> Cc: rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: XSLT2.0 and HTTP-PUT
> XSLT2 allows you to specify a URI to write output  documents 
> to [1]. The 
> current WD goes to some pains to say that implementations  can choose 
> how to support (or not) different schemes, etc.
> However, considering recent discussion on www-tag re: REST, the Web, 
> interoperability, etc., it would be nice if it highlighted 
> (or even made 
> a requirement for conditional compliance) support for HTTP 
> through PUT, 
> lest the only
> support be for "file" URIs.
> Has this been discussed in the WG?
> Regards,
> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#element-destination
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 10:04:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:22 UTC