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

Re: Sub-pipelines

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:45:01 -0800
Message-ID: <4828ceec0603211745i1c4bb03fk11ddf2b348bad75@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 3/21/06, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> Jeni raises an interesting point. We've been dealing with the naming
> question very casually, but it's an important and entirely seperable
> question.
> I think URIs are the right way to name components, but it's not clear
> to me that that approach is right for steps.
> Anyone have any proposals for naming steps?

We could also name components using qualified names. This is coherent
with the way functions are named in XSLT or XQuery. XSLT and XQuery
come with a set of pre-defined functions, specified in "XQuery 1.0 and
XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators". Those are in a given namespace
(e.g. fn:concat), but the users can define their own functions in
their own namespace (e.g. my:func).

The parallel here is that we have a set of predefined components (e.g.
xproc:xslt), but that the user or a pipeline engine can define its own
components (e.g. my:problem-solver).

Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 01:45:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:39 UTC