W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > August 2008

Re: foreign namespaces

From: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:20:06 +0200
Message-ID: <21d9ade60808270320r5b45fb5ejdc398848e73472f1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "James Fuller" <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Cc: "Florent Georges" <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>, "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

James,

Not really, since the *foreign element* have already the meaning of
calling and user defined step

Suppose we allow foreign element and the mechanism we already have :

then when the pipeline processor encounter

<foreign:element>
  ...
</foreign:element>

It won't know if :
* this was supposed to be a call to a user defined step, that has not
been declared
* or if it is just a foreign element, that could be user for anything

So having this element, has also the big advantage of allowing tools
the detect quickly bugs

Regards,

Xmlizer




On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM, James Fuller
<james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:55 AM, mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let me add my two cents
>>
>> I don't think you can compare "user-defined data element" from XSLT with XProc
>>
>> an XSLT document can be the result document without instruction at
>> all, that's one goal of XSLT
>>
>> there is no such thing in XProc
>>
>> By the way, the xproc extension mechanism is based on p:pipeinfo (
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#p.pipeinfo )
>
> Atom allows foreign namespaces everywhere ... I don't understand why
> xproc could not do the same thing ... I also note that this would
> remove p:pipeinfo, its good to reduce and remove from a spec.
>
> J
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 10:20:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 August 2008 10:20:43 GMT