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

Re: splitting

From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:06:43 +0200
Message-ID: <a0ad8ffe0709170206j504eb601ob4d29e756c01d13f@mail.gmail.com>
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

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

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