- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:05:16 -0600
- To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Cc: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 15:44 +0000, McBride, Brian wrote: [...] > 2. Where do we stand on multiple transform languages? In the phone call today, I went over the relevant text with Brian and noticed that it said "transformations should be available..." which suggests that transformations have some choice in the matter. I made this change... http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#changes Revision 1.166 2006/11/29 23:41:05 connolly in discussion of transformation formats, make it clear who the "should" applies to, and use "GRDDL processor" from the glossary rather than "consumer". resulting in... [[ Developers of transformations should make available representations in widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] is the format most widely supported by GRDDL processors as of this writing, though though XSLT2[XSLT2] deployment is increasing. ]] Normally I'd just make a change like this without any special notice, but our 30 Aug #issue-whichlangs decision referred to the specific text in the spec... RESOLUTION: to address [#issue-whichlangs] as per the current draft (1.83 2006/08/25 20:23:09). SHOULD support XSLT 1; MAY support others. so in some sense, I'm re-opening that decision. The chair might choose to have the WG explicitly confirm that this change is editorial and doesn't impact the decision we made, though I suggest it's not necessary; this notice is probably sufficient. I'm inclined to take silence as agreement. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 00:05:25 UTC