Re: GRDDL and transformations (take 2) [#issue-whichlangs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dan Connolly writes:

> 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?

I understood "MUST support XSLT 1.0" to mean "MUST support XSLT 1.0 as
a GRDDL transformation language", that is, to apply XSLT 1.0
stylesheets when they are supplied.  The conformance of their XSLT 1.0
>
> 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?

I agree it's crucial that this be allowed.

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE9Dt1kjnJixAXWBoRAoG6AJ9AVgaUbpwEK3bwo/Wzja1fbK0U0wCeIEJa
ZM7OKJSJdOlshs1zyub4/5g=
=h2IA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2006 13:05:08 UTC