- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:52:19 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org>, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 13:17 -0400, Jonathan Robie wrote: > [...] > >> I think it would be simple to change this to say "XSLT and XQuery are >> specifically designed to express XML to XML transformations and has some >> good safety characteristics" or add a sentence like: "XQuery, another >> language designed specifically for such tasks, is not yet used in >> existing GRDDL implementations." >> > > OK, I salted to taste a bit: > > "While technically Javascript, C, or virtually any other programming > language may be used to express transformations for GRDDL, XSLT is > specifically designed to express XML to XML transformations and has some > good safety characteristics; XQuery has similar characteristics to XSLT, > though use of XQuery in GRDDL implementation is less widely deployed at > the time of this writing." > -- GRDDL spec, editor's draft > http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#txforms > 1.288 2007/07/19 21:21:00 > > > > >> P.S., as you probably guess, I'm not satisfied with your answer. >> > > How about now? As far as XQuery is concerned, I think this is good now, because XQuery uses the same data model as XSLT, and it's easy to infer the details from here. Thanks! I'm not at all sure how GRDDL would expect a C or Javascript implementation to work, given the general framework, and I can't quite tell whether your text is trying to say that GRDDL supports any language, or that these other languages aren't really directly suitable so you don't try to offer support for them. Saying one of these two things more clearly would be helpful. Jonathan
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 16:53:31 UTC