W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > August 2007

Re: XProc Editors Draft 2007-07-19: Section 3.6 Comments

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:34:42 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <873az388gd.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
|> | Why is it that ignorable namespaces aren't inherited from <p:pipeline-library>
|> | to <p:pipeline>? Is it because extension elements that appear in a pipeline
|> | library must appear as children of <p:pipeline-library> rather than
|> | <p:pipeline>? It would be good to say so if so.
|> I've gone back and forth on this point. I think you're right that we
|> should make this more explicit. Unless, of course, we just want to let
|> the pipelines inside a library inherit from the library?
| I think they should, personally. It makes sense for extension elements
| to (possibly) be available at both levels to me, so it seems strange
| that you'd have to specify the ignorable namespaces on each individual
| <p:pipeline> if you wanted to do that.

Ok, I switched it back. One (minor) technical reason was to avoid the
need for an unignored-namespaces attribute. But I think we can just
live without that.

What I mean is, if you specify "http://example.com/foo" as an ignored
namespace at the p:pipeline-library level, then it *must* be an
ignored namespace in all the pipelines within that library. There's no
way to declare it "unignored" for one of the pipelines.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | It is as bad as you think. And they are
http://nwalsh.com/            | out to get you.

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 17:34:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:44 UTC