- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 13:44:18 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29472 --- Comment #11 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> --- In comment 10, ABr suggests that this bug can be reinterpreted as having been not about switching streaming processing off and on but about the availability of a declarative statement that a document read by an xsl:stream instruction is or is not warranted streamable by the stylesheet author. It seems to me that one of the important things learned in the process of digging the deep hole MK mentions in comment 8 is that when we are being careful, everyone in the WG agrees on the utility of a careful distinction between (a) a description like "a declarative statement that a document is or is not warranted streamable" on the one hand and (b) descriptions like "the possibility to switch OFF streaming" (description) or "the effect ... is to switch off ... streamed execution" (comment 3) on the other. It seems very clear from the description, comment 1, and comment 2 that at the workshop in Prague the felt need was for something best described along the lines of (b). Closing this bug by doing (a) amounts to a claim that there really is no important distinction between (a) and (b) after all; that is a claim I am not ready to tolerate, let alone endorse. I recognize that different members of the WG assign different degrees of importance to the difference between (a) and (b), but just as I have accepted the unwelcome fact that not everyone is willing to make any effort to distinguish clearly between declarative and imperative semantics at all times, so I ask other members of the WG to accept the unwelcome fact that some members of the WG (such as me) regard the distinction as fundamental. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 8 July 2016 13:44:26 UTC