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: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:19:26 +0000
Message-ID: <711a73df0812060019we3d16afl3d5b2b7ad0e96d67@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: Toman_Vojtech@emc.com, public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

2008/12/5 Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>:

>> Putting it the other way round...
>> If the XSLT WG proposed adding xproc extensions within the XSLT WD,
>> wouldn't you be teed off?
> Not at all. Extensibility hooks such as that in XPath (which allows anyone
> to create extension functions) and XProc (which allows anyone to create
> their own extension steps) are all good,

Hooks yes, but 'extensions'? No IMHO.

and should be used by anyone who
> wants to use them, WGs or not. We specifically want other WGs to define
> XProc steps that are useful for the kinds of processing they define (eg
> RDF-related processing) because they are experts in their fields and know
> the kinds of processing that they need to do.

If they make use of the hooks you've provided, then (in the same way as
exslt ) yes, I agree. It seems odd to me that another WG would want to
extend this rec though. An 'outside agency' yes, but not W3C. Particularly
if they documented it in their own rec?

> (Anyway, if we'd thought that creating extension functions was a bad idea,
> we'd never have had EXSLT, would we?)

That's the comparison I'm making? We allowed the WG to 'judge' the
success of some extensions, for consideration and adoption in xslt 2.
  That model seems to work well.


Dave Pawson
Docbook FAQ.
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2008 08:20:01 UTC

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