- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:06:43 +0200
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
as a side note: if the 'split' is along optional versus standard steps then perhaps there is something to learn from Apache Ant.... originally they had core and optional libraries and have undergone many refactorings since to where they are today e.g. with a fully extensible model with libraries. I think that XProc is aiming for the later approach. if the spec 'split' was to go along the lines of optional versus standard steps, is indicative that XProc library mechanism is not sufficient? Or is it prudent (as DaveP reminds me) to let experience inform of which way to go, instead of being too prescriptive at the beginning? One question I would ask now is if the standard library is fully capable of being defined as a 3rd party library...are there any special conventions within standard steps that make it different from any other 3rd party defined XProc library? cheers, Jim Fuller
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 09:06:54 UTC