W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > June 2007

optional libraries

From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 00:07:42 +0200
Message-ID: <a0ad8ffe0706071507o2133a300r69314cc09956b430@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org


The current draft of the spec alludes to both a standard step library
and the possibility of supporting a additional types.

'This specification defines a standard library, Appendix A, Standard
Step Library, of steps. Pipeline implementations may support
additional types of steps as well.'

This wording makes any statement of conformance with respect to
optional steps a little unclear.

In Appendix A, under A2, there is then a 'laundry' list of possible
optional steps.

I propose to make it easier to classify a specific XProc
implementation by doing the following;

* delineate between Standard Step library and all other optional steps
by moving A2 to its own appendix

* promote pipeline reuse and extension mechanisms by segregating
current and future optional steps into separate
pipeline-libraries...perhaps called system, test, optional, etc...

with these changes it would be possible to fully clarify an Xproc
implementation conformance with respect to optional
libraries....allowing implementators to pick and choose which optional
pipeline libraries they want to implement.

In addition, this provides a bit of wiggle room to absorb into the
XProc draft, any 'out in the wild' libraries that become wildly useful
for XProc without upsetting the core spec (or standard library).

cheers, Jim Fuller
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2007 22:07:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:24 UTC