GRDDL and XSLT 2.0 [was: XHTML 2.0 metainfo question (Correction!!!)]

Le mer 04/08/2004 à 11:53, Dan Brickley a écrit :
> Talking of which, more questions:
> 
> i) re GRDDL, if a transformation _does_ require XSLT 2.0 (although you
> argue in [1] that it can be implemented in 1.0), do we have any way in
> GRDDL of expressing this?

GRDDL doesn't require that the transformation language be expressed in
any given language, although it recommends using XSLT (implicitly 1.0,
although this is not clear in the current spec):
"""
Transformation algorithms should be represented in XSLT. While
javascript, C, or any other programming language technically expresses
the relevant information, XSLT is specifically designed to express XML
to XML transformations and has some good safety characteristics. Other
representations may be used by prior agreement of all concerned parties.
"""
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-grddl-20040413/#grddl-xhtml

For the XHTML version of GRDDL, you can specify the MIME-Type of the
transformer using the type attribute on the link, but even that wouldn't
help distinguish between XSLT 1.0 and XSLT 2.0. 

I guess my preference would be not to put this distinction in the
GRDDL-link, but rather use the traditional Web mechanisms to detect what
kind of transformations is suggested; in this case, a GRDDL processor
would know that XSLT 2.0 is needed thanks to the version attribute on
the GRDDL-izer served as application/xsl+xml .

A question that's still open to me is whether we should require XSLT 2.0
from GRDDL processors [1], or only XSLT 1.0. I guess it also depends on
when XSLT 2.0 reaches the Recommendation status.

Dom

1. We should probably define 2 classes of processors; one that doesn't
try to dereference links (and use them only as names), and one that may
try (following the same kind of division between validating and
non-validating XML processors); the XSLT 2.0 requirement would only
apply to the latter.
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org