- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:21:59 -0500
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, public-grddl-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 19:54 +0100, Harry Halpin wrote: [...] > Your argument is that the CR report specifies the function abstractly. > I'm pretty sure the GRDDL WG was not thinking of non-executable > functions when developing GRDDL. I would like to here other opinions of > whether or not a GRDDL transformation has to be "executable." A prose specification of a transformation function is just as much a representation of a transformation function as an XSLT document. But... > My personal opinion is that I am not sure what the utility of it is if > it can't be executable, exactly, as prose isn't a "widely-supported format"... "Developers of transformations should make available representations in widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] is the format most widely supported by GRDDL-aware agents as of this writing ... ." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 14:22:19 UTC