Re: put optional step in different namespace

On 10/25/07, Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

this is the point.

we should learn lessons from the Apache Ant project, who now have a
fully modular library system ....when they started they included both
standard and optional Ant tasks (somewhat analoguous to XProc steps)
into the core Ant program.

also, by separating out optional and standard step libraries we can
manage versioning of either much easier.

J


> -----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 Fuller
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 07:23:55 UTC