- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:04:49 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
-----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