Re: LC: Opposing OWL/XML format

>>> 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