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

Re: subpipelines, Vnext and extension elements redux

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:36:30 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20080319151250.043799c8@mail.muzmo.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

I have not looked at any of this for a while, so my take may be way off base,
but maybe I am better able to see the trees, even if I don't know the forest
all that well.

I had difficulty parsing the whole sub-section.

First of all, I wondered what "Other Steps" meant as a title in the TOC
of the editor's draft. I see that "Atomic Steps" is used in the Redux version.
I never felt that I understood why the term "Other Steps" was chosen
to represent exactly. It seems to posit the existence of a separate class
of steps which are to be know henceforth as "Other" where perhaps
"Xeno Steps" might more evocatively express the intent. Perhaps it
means "Extension Steps." Or perhaps "Other" has some more subtle
meaning that simply escapes me. The point being that I got caught on this,
so maybe others will too.

I did alright after that, think that I knew what was going on, and then
I got to the two "If the step element name ..." parts and I wondered if
I was able to parse those sentences successfully. I decided in the end
that I could not, and speculated that I might not be alone. I thought
that I might have done better if I had seen an example of correct and
incorrect.

I think that I think that I might know what this section is about, but it sure
is not clear by reading it in isolation.

I think that I want to read a title that contains the words "Extension" and 
"Step(s)".
I think that I want a paragraph to explain how one approaches extending xproc,
whether sanctioned or not, and what the implications of that are on both
processor development and pipeline development -- design your pipeline with
your processor in mind, design your processor with your documents in mind,
or design your pipelines for lowest common denominator. We have to address 
this.

I understand that I haven't offered any constructive criticism. I'll try to 
have
something more helpful to say tomorrow morning.

Regards,

Murray
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 20:35:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 March 2008 20:35:30 GMT