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

Re: foreign namespaces

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:49:56 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <m23akqd3m3.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Florent Georges" <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> writes:

>> The only place they're allowed is in a subpipeline where they
>> must have a corresponding declaration (as they must be atomic
>> steps).
>
>   So you've chosen to not reuse the concepts of "user-defined
> data elements" [1] and "extension instructions" [2,3] from XSLT
> (both 1.0 & 2.0)? :

It's trickier in XProc because sequence matters more so than in XSLT.

>   The former has proved very useful for little "extensions" to
> the language, for example regarding documentation, or meta
> information (for instance mapping from the business rules
> documents).

You can put anything you want in p:pipeinfo and you can put that
anywhere you want.

>   About the later, I don't understand comprehensively and
> exactly the extension mechanism of XProc, but I can't think you
> didn't allow the ability of declaring extension steps defined
> in an implementation-defined way (read: in Java or whatever.)

Sure, you can do that.

  <p:declare-step type="px:my-extension"
		  px:class="org.xproc.extensions.MyExtension">
    <p:input port="source"/>
    <p:output port="result"/>
  </p:declare-step>

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Birds are taken with pipes that imitate
http://nwalsh.com/            | their own voices, and men with those
                              | sayings that are most agreeable to
                              | their own opinions.--Samuel Butler

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 12:50:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 August 2008 12:50:42 GMT