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: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:23:07 -0700
Message-ID: <4828ceec0703202323m244e1cd9re545398fb5cd68c6@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

On 3/16/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> I also think users are going to find the extra level of indirection,
> that of putting the namespace attribute on the pipeline-library as a
> way of putting pipelines in a namespace, confusing. When we say we did
> it so that step names wouldn't have to be QNames, and that we didn't
> want them to be QNames because that was somehow more complicated than
> making them NCNames, I think they're going to be...amused.

+1 for going with QNames. (Which maybe shows my bias here in favor of
how things are done in XSLT.) I can live with NCNames though. So Norm,
don't feel that it is necessary to reopen this one unless you see us
moving towards a consensus.

Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms for the Enterprise
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 06:23:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:42 UTC