- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:28:13 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 11:57 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-grddl-20061024/ > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-grddl-primer-20061002/ > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-grddl-scenarios-20061002/ [...] > Substantive XSLT 2.0 > ==================== > > I was very surprised to see that this spec referred to XSLT 1.0 and not > XSLT 2.0. The XSLT 1.0 citation is informative. The current editor's draft cites both of them informatively. > By the time GRDDL goes to rec, XSLT 2.0 is likely to be the W3C > recommendation, "the"? I am not aware of any plans to rescind XSLT 1.0. > and I don't see why the GRDDL WG should recommend a > solution that the consortium has significantly improved. We're documenting the experience that we have, and that is almost all with XSLT 1.0. > In particular, > browser support seems to be a) irrelevant for many uses (are browsers > going to be the main GRDDL engines, I think not) b) historically dated, > browser support for XSLT 2.0 is likely in the future. > > Also the minutes of the 30 Aug meeting do not seem to reveal why MUST in > the e-mail message became SHOULD. While it is clear that some software > may use a GRDDL mechanism for say processing javascript, and not support > XSLT, I think it is clearer to say that these are not GRDDL clients. We don't actually specify any software classes such as for 'GRDDL client'. Not yet, at least. The question of which conformance labels we'll have is open http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-conformance-labels 'GRDDL-aware agent' is the term used (though not specified) in the glossary. http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-grddl-scenarios-20061002/#glossary > i.e. > > [[ > A GRDDL client MUST support XSLT 2.0 and XSLT 1.0 > > Authors of GRDDL documents are advised that restricting themselves to > XSLT 1.0 may achieve higher interoperability with clients that partially > implement the GRDDL specification. > ]] > > The WG appears to want GRDDL to be an open-ended mechanism for > experimenting with different transformation languages. We're trying to strike a balance, documenting the concrete implementation experience that we have without overspecifying GRDDL. > I have nothing > against that, but the recommendation should concentrate on a realistic > interoperable solution; and the WG should ensure that a client > implementing the specification can appropriately flag any more > experimental use of GRDDL that it does not support. Using "MUST support XSLT" regardless of version involves specifying exactly what "support" means. So far, we use SHOULD and give examples and test cases. Specifying exactly what "support" means without overly restricting various agent policy choices has eluded us so far. If you have a suggestion, I'm interested. > Jeremy -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 15:28:27 UTC