- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:06:45 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1244 cmsmcq@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WORKSFORME Summary|[XSLT 2.0] question about |[XSLT 2.0] question about |result-document/@href |result-document/@href ------- Additional Comments From cmsmcq@w3.org 2005-04-28 18:06 ------- Thank you for the mail. On closer examination, the Working Group believes this is not so much a comment on the Last Call Working Draft as a simple question, and so we are marking it Resolved. The answer to the question is: it's implementation-dependent which URI schemes an implementation can support in result documents. There is nothing in the spec, that is, which says a processor may not support stylesheets like your example, and also nothing which requires them to do so. In passing, one member of the WG observed that even if a processor does support your example, you may not want to do things that way -- the XSLT processor may support sending the document to the service, but presumably you'll want to know what response the service sent back, which result-document is not going to handle. Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. Thanks again.
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2005 18:06:56 UTC