What is the value of moving those steps in another namespace? In any case, they could be detected with p:step-available() if that was to be a problem. I have been thinking of whether all steps from the XPSSL (XProc's Standard Step Library :D) should be moved to another namespace though. -----Original Message----- From: public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of James Fuller Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:35 AM To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org Subject: put optional step in different namespace if we assume that the standard library, as defined with a p:pipeline-library element is defined with a default namespace attribute e.g. namespace="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc" In the case for optional steps, is there not value in placing these in a separate pipeline-library definition with a different namespace from the outset? namespace="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc-opt" Jim FullerReceived on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 23:22:09 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:42 GMT