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: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:53:53 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2od991oy6.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com> was heard to say:
[...]
| 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.

Good points. I took another stab at 4.7 based on this feedback and Henry's
alternate draft. It's up now at

  http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#p.atomic

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Things work out best for those who make
http://nwalsh.com/            | the best of the way things work out.

Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 13:54:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 March 2008 13:54:35 GMT