- From: Ronald P. Reck <rreck@rrecktek.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:00:47 -0400
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, public-grddl-wg@w3.org
Harry Halpin wrote:
>
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>
>> On 13 May 2008, at 15:56, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>> I believe that everyone else agrees that the GRDDL spec does *not*
>> require an executable, downloadable specification of the
>> transformation at the namespace document.
> That's a bit strong. I think agreement of most of the remaining active
> members (at least myself, Chime, David Booth, not sure about DanC and
> Jeremy) of the GRDDL WG is that executable code, in particular XSLT,
> would be useful, and there is no obvious use value in a non-executable
> version.
You can add my name to that list. I concur.
{snip]
BP>> From a marketing perspective, it feels like a bait and switch. I feel
BP>> like I did due diligence and now am sandbagged. Proper specs *cannot*
BP>> require people to interview members of the community to determine what
BP>> conforming behavior is. That defeats the point!
HH> No-one else in the community has ever brought up the point that the
HH> GRDDL transformation could be non-executable. Thus, I think your
HH> reading of the specification is unique. I am glad you have brought this
HH> up, as no-one has thought this through before, and it is an intelligent
HH> if unusual point.
I also agree wholeheartedly with this point too.
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2008 13:01:28 UTC