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: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:32:37 +0000
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bk5xiry4q.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> The new status quo:
>
>  - Requires pipeline-libraries to have a namespace. That's more
>    complex and is going to be harder to explain.

Not requires -- perfectly OK to define pipeline-library in no
namespace.

Contrast the _status quo ante_ - pipeline might or might not have
namespaces, who knows when or why.

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

Not at all -- the import is trivial in either case.

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

We can't import _anything_ into a library, what's the issue?

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

It wasn't incorrect, it's just not as well supported by the Schema
spec. as it should be.

> It seems to me that life would, in fact, be simpler if we said that
> the names of steps are QNames

That's _worse_ than the _status quo_, in which at least steps have
NCNames.  We're only arguing about pipelines, I hope.

> and that an unqualified name is never in a namespace. Those are
> certainly rules that will be familiar to users of XSLT.

And confusing to users of XML Schema. . .

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF+bt1kjnJixAXWBoRAvE/AJoD6wB+QXbKXVJBcfSpPlwD7dGMgACfSMlA
EeWOkm86hpIswJWjF2o7Etk=
=i+Vr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 21:32:46 GMT

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