Re: Some spec comments (to .xsl or not to .xsl?) (#issue-whichlangs, #issue-conformance-labels)

Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Sounds reasonable. No need to mention that:
>>
>> <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/getAuthor.xsl>
>>
>> might have a Javascript representation...
>
> <tongue-in-cheek-response intent='raise an issue'>
>
> And what happens if a 'GRDDL-aware Agent' fetches the link and gets a 
> Javscript mime-type? Is it obligated to apply the javascript 
> transformation, does it have enough to know what a 'javascript' 
> transformation entails (from the URL alone)? If it does nothing, is it 
> violating what we are suggesting as a conformance label?...
> </tongue-in-cheek-response>
I can't tell if you're serious or not. In case you are...

The spec currently (1.226) says

"A GRDDL-aware agent should... Find each transformation... Apply each 
transformation..."
so yes, it has a SHOULD-level obligation to apply the javascript; 
meanwhile, that bit of the spec
follows "Subject to ... local policy as expressed in its configuration 
..." and it's pretty
clear to me that "I don't do javascript" is a reasonable policy, 
especially given
our position on #issue-whichlangs...

"Developers of transformations should make available representations in 
widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] 
<http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#XSLT1> is the format most widely 
supported by GRDDL-aware agents as of this writing, though though 
XSLT2[XSLT2] <http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#XSLT2> deployment is 
increasing. While technically Javascript, C, or virtually any other 
programming language may be used to express transformations for GRDDL, 
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

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


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