- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:27:54 -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: > > A few paragraphs later, after giving the formal rule for the XSLT > case, we say... > > "Non-XSLT transforms may indicate the RDF graph in some other, > unspecified, fashion." > > Perhaps that's what you're looking for? > > The actual conformance clause for a GRDDL-aware agent is later > in the document; the relevant part is: > > "a GRDDL-aware agent should ... > Find each transformation ... > Selectively apply any or all discovered transformations to obtain GRDDL > results. Note selection may be guided by the agent's capabilities, local > security policies and possibly user/client intervention." > > i.e. GRDDL-aware agents may support any transformation language(s). > How XSLT works is fully specified. All the test cases and > examples the WG provides are XSLT, because that's all we have experience > with, but we leave open the possibility of agents that support > other languages. > > Is that satisfactory? > > > For reference, the relevant WG decisions and issues are: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/issues#issue-conformance-labels > resolved 2007-02-21 to have a conformance clause for GRDDL-aware > agents as above. > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/issues#issue-whichlangs > resolved 2006-08-30 to recommend XSLT and allow other transformation > languages > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/issues#issue-output-formats > resolved 6 Dec 2006-12-06 to specify the XSLT case completely > Yes, this is satisfactory. (I might prefer to move the statement that other languages are not specified to the paragraph I quoted, but that's editorial and a matter of taste.) Thanks! Jonathan
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 19:30:23 UTC