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

Re: Chameleon components

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:27:39 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87wt2svi5g.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| <moz mode="acceptancy" intensity="low" condition="requirements"/>
|
| Imagining going further with this notation,
| for consistency with
| <p:validate type="XMLSchema" version="1.1"
| I propose
| <p:transform type="xslt" version="1.0"
| so I can add DSSSL, exslt, stx, Omnimark, Balise or anything i like
| without having to author a special user component (unless component
| definiton language would be available for V1, which I doubt
| seriously), just patching my xproc engine

You can add a DSSSL component with

  <moz:dsssl ...> (or <p:step type="moz:dsssl">)

I'm don't see how that's any easier than <p:transform type="dsssl">

| and <p:query type="xquery" version="1.0" extension="update"
| so I can put xpath2, sqlx, etc...
|
| <moz mode="waiting-for-miracle" intensity="medium" />

Personally, I'd like separate steps for XML Schema, RELAX NG, etc.,
validation, but I appeared to be in the minority when I broached it.

Note that if we take your train of thought to its logical conclusion,
we wind up with

  <p:step type="xxx">

which is what we have now :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 14:28:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:49 GMT