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

Re: uuid question

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 16:47:45 +0000
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <31045B09-C0BF-4E6B-8E5D-0D2416EECBFD@jenitennison.com>
To: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>

Jim,

On 7 Dec 2008, at 15:14, James Fuller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Jeni Tennison  
> <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>> I think a better guide would be that any process that returns an  
>> atomic
>> value (eg string, number) should be an XPath function; any process  
>> that
>> returns XML should be an XProc step.
>
> this could be made to be true (and I like the characterization); but
> this is not saying much as the difference between a string, number and
> xml could just be an interceding c:result root element.

Yes. I just think it's wasteful to generate nodes when all you really  
want is an atomic value. And that it's more work for users to invoke a  
step than a function.

> I think the less xproc ordained functions the better ... I would
> propose leaving it to future versions to figure out.


I agree that it's less intrusive for XProc to define steps than to  
define XPath extension functions; I think it'll prove less usable, but  
that is something we can correct later if we need to.

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Sunday, 7 December 2008 16:48:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 7 December 2008 16:48:21 GMT