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

RE: uuid question

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:28:04 -0500
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC7870DAFA96A@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>

> I also have one general (and heretical?) question about p:uuid and
> p:hash: Why do we have these steps at all? They are just a 
> special form
> of p:string-replace, ...so what if we had p:uuid() and 
> p:hash() as XPath
> extension functions? I know it would mean to define a nice APIs for
> these functions, whether and how they accept additional 
> parameters etc.,
> but in the end, I think we could gain much more flexibility. But it is
> probably too late for considering such a big change, plus there may be
> other serious arguments against this which I don't see... 

I will raise one argument against this idea myself: XProc is built on
the principle of having a rich (and extensible) library of steps, not
extension XPath functions. Furthermore, complex XPath extension
functions are much more difficult to maintian than steps; the fewer of
extension functions we have the better, IMHO.

Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 15:29:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:26 UTC