- From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:45:57 +0100
- To: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>, <cam-public-qt-comments@aka.mcc.id.au>
Cameron McCormack raised this comment {qt-2003Nov0052-01}:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Nov/0052.html
I made a personal reply at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Nov/0056.html
which reads:
Thanks for drawing my attention to this interesting paper.
I think it has always been part of the design philosophy of XSLT that by
keeping the language side-effect-free, incremental transformation would
be
possible. This paper seems to suggest that this assuption is correct. If
anyone wants to propose specific changes to the language that are needed
in
order to develop incremental processors, then the Working Group would be
happy to look at such suggestions. However, "specifying incremental XSLT
processors" is outside the WG's scope: we only specify the language, not
details of how implementations should work.
The Working Group considered the comment on 2004-01-20 and decided to
endorse my personal reply. This closes the comment with no change to the
specification.
Cameron, can you please confirm that this closure of the comment is
acceptable?
With regards,
Michael Kay
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2004 16:48:31 UTC