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: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:14:28 +0000
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bk5xhqtaz.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

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

I don't care a great deal about how pipelines acquire their expanded
name.

I do care a great deal about keeping simple things simple, and there
is just no need for steps in general to have expanded names, so let's
not confuse people by pretending they might.

Here's an alternative I could live with: Pipelines are named with
expanded names, steps are named with simple names, pipe/@step is an
NCName, because that's all you need to refer to another step, and
likewise from _inside_ a pipe all you need is its local name.

I'd still prefer to keep pipeline/@name the same as [step]/@name,
i.e. an NCName, and use an optional 'namespace' attribute to 'put' a
pipeline in a namespace.  Likewise, I'd prefer to keep the 'namespace'
attribute on pipeline-library.

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+oolkjnJixAXWBoRAgUlAJ0bkvZ+3OUBC+aRtD1LHGuzwYq0wgCfbIaw
89/kL1dy9hP0iHDXYL4hVyw=
=gKLv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 12:14:40 GMT

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