Re: GRDDL-aware agents (Was Re: "GRDDL Agents" ...) (#issue-conformance-labels)

Murray Maloney wrote:
>
> It looks good.

Thanks.
>
> For the record, I still dislike the fact that "GRDDL Agent" is used 
> but not defined.

oops; that's a bug.

Revision 1.227  2007/02/20 21:01:50  connolly
scrub for consistent use of GRDDL-aware agent


> I still think that step 2, which states "Apply each transformation to 
> obtain a GRDDL result."
> should say something about the fact that it might not be possible to 
> apply transformations
> if, for example, the transformation relies on software that is not 
> available -- such as awk(1)
> on a Windows box. I suppose that most people will recognize that a 
> GRDDL agent cannot do
> what it cannot do, but it would be nice to see some acknowledgement of 
> that fact in the
> discussion of a what a GRDDL Agent "should" do.

I think the text that Jeremy contributed touched on that... yes... well, 
something close...
the spec currently includes...

"Some implementations of the transform language may provide nonstandard 
facilities for the direct loading and execution of other programming 
language code. For example, an XSLT implementation may provide a method 
of calling Java code. Such facilities are quite obviously open to 
substantial abuse. GRDDL transforms *should not* make use of such 
features. Besides being totally implementation-specific, they are also 
likely to be unavailable in secure implementations of the transformation 
langauge."

Maybe it could be adapted more directly into step 2, but I'm kinda out 
of wordsmithing energy for today.

>
> Just my opinion. I am otherwise quite happy with Dan's latest draft.
>
> Regards,
>
> Murray
>
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/