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

Re: Naming steps or naming outputs

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:35:01 -0700
Message-ID: <44A552B5.1090601@milowski.org>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Rui Lopes wrote:
> If this pipeline was written in a direct syntax, my pipeline processor 
> would have to know that an hypothetical <my:safeguard /> tag would 
> represent a step. However, if it doesn't recognize it, well... my cpu 
> would certainly melt! That wouldn't happen in a generic syntax.

I don't think changing <my:safeguard/> to <p:step type="my:safeguard"/>
is going to keep your CPU from melting.  The pipeline processor has to
know what my:safeguard means in either case.  As such, the burden is the
same.

I think the main issue comes down to whether you can validate the syntax
with one schema or not and whether it actually makes things easier for
the pipeline author.

--Alex Milowski
Received on Friday, 30 June 2006 17:01:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:48 GMT