- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:33:57 -0400
- To: "Clark, John" <CLARKJ2@ccf.org>, "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
> From: public-grddl-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-grddl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Clark, John > > [ . . . ] with the proposed change, the > transformation author can only control the variability along > one of two > possible axes; the other is out of her control. First, the document > must be projected into the XPath data model in order to determine what > transformations apply (call this the "transformation determination" > step). Second, the document must be consumed by each of the GRDDL > transformations and the results merged (call this process the > "transformation application" step). The implementation of these two > steps is independent, and the transformation author can only > exert full > control over the transformation application step (for example by using > XProc, as we have theorized). Yes, that is exactly correct. The proposed change does not permit all variability to be controlled, it only permits the "transformation application" step to be controlled. In this regard, this proposal would be clearly inferior to a change that would also remove the variability of that step. Hmm, with that in mind, perhaps I should offer at least one other alternative solution. I'll send it in a separate message. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 15:34:49 UTC