- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:35:17 +0100
- To: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
I do think it would be good to add a sentence or so about media-types to the GRDDL spec - it seems to be a fairly common misunderstanding (as was just displayed by people as bright as DanBri on the SemWeb interest list-serv [1]) that people have that GRDDL limits them to XSLT 1.0 and has no mechanism for anything else. Well, it *might* - but we only require XSLT 1.0 - so let's be clear about that. So, I suggest adding the following sentences to the GRDDL spec somewhere: "GRDDL implementations SHOULD support XSLT 1.0 as a transformation language, and MAY support other languages." "Languages GRDDL implementations are encouraged to support include languages like XSLT 2.0 and XQuery." Now, for the more controversial media-type sentence: "GRDDL can use media types of the transformation resource to detect the what type of language the transformation uses. For example, if in a XHTML document the link element has an href attribute of "http://www.example.org/transformation" and this URI returns a document with a media type of "application/xslt+xml," GRDDL is licensed to run the transformation using XSLT." Notice I'm intentionally a bit vague about XSLT 1.0 or XSLT 2.0 here. I believe they share the same media-type. So, to give a single option (since Xquery doesn't have a media-type I think) and to answer this possible issue, here's another tw more controversial sentence: "However, if the resource had a media type of "application/javascript," GRDDL could run, if the implementation supported it, a javascript transformation." And: "Since many languages do not have media types and multiple versions may share a single media type, GRDDL implementations can use various implementation-dependent techniques to attempt to discover the language or version of a language used by a transformation. However, the only language transformation required to be supported by a GRDDL implementation is XSLT 1.0." I realize that last sentence is repetitive but we should repeat ourselves sometimes to make points absolutely clear. -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2006 01:35:21 UTC