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

Re: General or Specific Pipeline Vocabulary?

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:15:53 +0100
Message-ID: <43CB9C89.4090800@orbeon.com>
CC: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Alex Milowski wrote:

 > ...which comes back to a *requirement* of extensibility.  If I were to
 > refine that requirement, I'd want to allow embedding of custom
 > vocabularies for pipeline steps.

A quick note in passing: using a generic vocabulary has some benefits,
like the fact that you can more easily validate the vocabulary, and
also that tools that produce the vocabulary are more easily written.

This does not preclude:

1. Embedding XML infosets in pipeline step inputs so as to avoid
    creating too many external documents.

2. Allowing the schema for the pipeline language to be open and accept
    foreign, user- or implementation-defined elements.

-Erik
Received on Monday, 16 January 2006 13:15:57 GMT

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