- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:20:20 -0500
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 03:12 +0100, Harry Halpin wrote: [...] > So, I'd say "A GRDDL implementation MUST support XSLT 1.0, and a GRDDL > implementation MAY support other transformations." I think "SHOULD support XSLT 1.0" is fine, but I'm not even sure what it means to say "MUST"; for example, suppose I give an XSLT transformation with an infinite loop. What is the correct behaviour of a GRDDL implementation in that case? Or suppose the GRDDL implementation is offered as a free service, by, say W3C, and the XSLT transformation computes PI to the 2000th decimal place, and W3C doesn't care to devote sufficient CPU cycles to that task. Is our GRDDL implementation non-conforming? Or suppose the GRDDL implementation is one that recognizes a selected set of transformations by URI and uses a local implementation in C++ (one that is known to be compatible with the XSLT representations available on the Web) and refuses to deal with other transformations as a matter of policy? More on Javascript separately... p.s. I'm trying out issue designators in Subject lines with [#issue-whichlangs]. That's short for http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-whichlangs Let's see if the convention sticks... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 25 August 2006 19:20:41 UTC