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

Re: uuid question

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:34:32 +0000
Message-ID: <711a73df0812050734w49b1aff1q53788de03d3081bd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

2008/12/5  <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>:
>
>> I also have one general (and heretical?) question about p:uuid and
>> p:hash: Why do we have these steps at all?

> 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.


Putting it the other way round...
If the XSLT WG proposed adding xproc extensions within the XSLT WD,
wouldn't you be teed off?

Reference a spec or don't.
Add more stuff to xproc, but not to 'other' recs? Seems all wrong somehow.
(Just my two penneth)

regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 15:35:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 December 2008 15:35:08 GMT