- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:54:48 -0500
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 10:35 +0200, Danny Ayers wrote: > On 9/5/06, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote: > > > "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. > > This bit troubles me a little. Passing an XSLT 2.0 transformation to > an XSLT 1.0 engine will result in an error, Really? Did you get that from a spec or from experience? I'd like to think there's some forward compatibility. It certainly seems like a good thing to test in our test suite. > right now there doesn't > seem to be an automatic way of preventing this. The alternatives seem > to be either to use a supplementary statement naming the engine > (providing the URI of the XSLT 2.0 namespace?), or more simply to > acknowledge that the process might not work (but there may be > human-readable annotation perhaps offering an explanation for anyone > prepared to go looking). > > For this iteration the latter probably makes most sense, it might be > appropriate to state this explicitly in the spec text. In case that's a Britishly-encoded request ("Dan, please add some text") then my answer is, as usual: if you think it's important, please suggest some specific text. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 12:55:18 UTC