- From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:47:24 +0100
- CC: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Richard Tobin wrote: > It seems natural to me to divide the problem into several parts: > > - the pipeline language itself. I call an implementation of this > a "pipeline engine"; > > - a set of standard components, such as XSLT and XInclude; > > - a framework for writing additional components that are interoperable > with other suppliers' pipeline engines and components; > > - a component description language that would specify such things as > the number of inputs and outputs a component has, what parameters it > takes, and what infoset extensions it needs. [...] > I think we will find it easiest to first standardise only the first > two, and in any case there should be a level of conformance that > allows systems that only provide the first two. Agreed. We suggested in the XPL draft that there should be a standard library [1], but we fell short of mandating XSLT support, for example. Determining the extent of such a library may prove difficult. If possible, I think it should be done, even as an optional module of the spec. > In this case, what flows between components need not be specified, > since it is internal to the implementation. If by "what flows" you mean what API is used (SAX, DOM, etc.), then I agree. If by "what flows" you mean what information set is used, then it is an open question: we could very well specify a minimal information set that all conformant implementations must support. -Erik [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/xpl/#standardprocessors
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 19:47:27 UTC