- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:40:31 -0800
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>>> Well, I think we do already :) But if you mean an XSLT, then we can do >>> the wrapper thing quickly. Rees indicated that that wasn't acceptable! >>> >>> Verra strange. >> >> Maybe you missed where I said my reason to dislike the web service >> (XSLT+CGI) was that it was complicated and fragile. > > I don't think it is. Certainly not *more* complicated and fragile. The reason that this option was rejected was that it required users to ship their files to the site where the cgi was running. This was no good for users inside companies where this would represent an unacceptable exposure of potentially proprietary information. http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.04.30/Minutes#Issue_97 -Alan
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 02:41:12 UTC