W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: subpipelines, Vnext and extension elements redux

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:01:19 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2bq5ao7wg.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh writes:
|
|> I think that's where we wound up back when we decided to take
|> pfx:other-compound-step out of 4.7,
|>
|>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xproc-20070706/#p.other
|
| A primary motivation for my lengthy re-analysis was because it
| re-surfaced in the alternate draft, and is still there today [1]:
|
|  "The presence of other compound steps is implementation-defined;
|   XProc provides no standard mechanism for defining them or describing
|   what they can contain."

Right. If I want to implement ex:map-reduce, I'm free to do so. I
don't think we want to forbid implementation-defined compound steps.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Greatness of soul is never apparent,
http://nwalsh.com/            | for it conceals itself; a little
                              | originality is usually all that shows.
                              | Greatness of soul is more frequent than
                              | one would suppose.-- Stendhal

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 19:01:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 March 2008 19:01:56 GMT