W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > December 2009

RE: Version attribute issues

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:30:49 -0500
Message-ID: <997C307BEB90984EBE935699389EC41C4F2F15@CORPUSMX70C.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
> Actually, on closer inspection, I wonder if the intent of 
> 2.13 was to say
> that XProc version applies to p:pipeline, p:declare-step, or p:library
> and no where else.

I think that was the intent. In my view, the same XProc version falls in
the same category as xpath-version and psvi-required. The same
inheritance rules apply.

> 
> Do we really *need* or *want* to allow version mixing at a lower level
> than whole pipelines?

You mean for instance this?

<p:pipeline version="1.0">
  <p:identity version="2.0"/>
</p:pipeline>

I think you can always emulate it with:

<p:pipeline version="1.0">
  <p:pipeline type="v2:identity" version="2.0">
    <p:identity/>
  </p:declare-step>
  <v2:identity/>
</p:pipeline>

Question is, what would happen when you used @version on, say,
p:pipe.... But I don't really want to go that route myself. 

Perhaps it wouldn't be that much work to support @version at the step
"invocation" level in V1, but given that a (more verbose) workaround
always exists, it would be more of a convenience feature. So my opinion:
not in V1.

Regards,
Vojtech
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 13:31:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 December 2009 13:31:35 GMT