- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:21:10 -0500
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 01:58 +0100, Harry Halpin wrote: > Note this is just me discharging my duty, and the WG has still has > consensus that the spec. does not *need* changing. However, I think in > the interests of clarity after this sentence: > > "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." > > There should be this sentence: > > "GRDDL processors SHOULD support XSLT 1.0 and MAY support other > transformation languages." Adding just that one sentence doesn't make sense, since "GRDDL procoessor" isn't a term used nor defined in the spec. (it occurs only in the issues list.) So I'm not inclined to make that change. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 22:21:18 UTC