W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > January 2006

Re: What do we standardize?

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:47:24 +0100
Message-ID: <43C40F4C.2020205@orbeon.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:46 GMT