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

Re: Pipeline Composition and our Recent Pipeline Name/Library Decision

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:16:53 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87wt1is4ey.fsf@nwalsh.com>
The more I think about it, the more sympathetic I am to Alex's
position.

The new status quo:

 - Requires pipeline-libraries to have a namespace. That's more
   complex and is going to be harder to explain.

 - Appears to make importing single pipelines quite different from
   importing a library.

 - Either changes the name of pipelines imported to a library vs.
   imported to a pipeline or further complicates the semantics of
   import.

 - Was motivated in part by an understanding of the XML Schema spec
   that turned out not to be correct.

It seems to me that life would, in fact, be simpler if we said that
the names of steps are QNames and that an unqualified name is never in
a namespace. Those are certainly rules that will be familiar to users
of XSLT.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

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

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:17:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:50 GMT