Re: Media-types and GRDDL

On Sep 4, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> 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."

Is what's already in the spec not sufficient?

[[
The transformation link type refers to a transformation algorithm that 
should have a available representations in widely-supported formats. We 
expect most consumers to support XSLT version 1[XSLT1] for the 
foreseeable future, though XSLT2[XSLT2] deployment is increasing. While 
javascript, C, or any other programming language technically expresses 
the relevant information, XSLT is specifically designed to express XML 
to XML transformations and has some good safety characteristics.
]]
  --  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#txforms

Just last week the WG resolved that it _is_ sufficient.

"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."
  -- http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-grddl-wg-minutes#item06

Are you suggesting we re-open that issue?


> Now, for the more controversial media-type sentence:
>
> "GRDDL can use

Er... GRDDL is not a person; it can't use anything, can it?

>  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."

Again, anthropomorphisation.

Do you mean the href attribute of a link element with 
rel="transformation"?


> 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."

Required? Again, we resolved to recommend XSLT 1.0, but not
require it.

> I realize that last sentence is repetitive but we should repeat
> ourselves sometimes to make points absolutely clear.

I think what's already there is more clear.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2006 02:30:47 UTC