W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > January 2012

RE: Low hanging fruit for V.next

From: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:57:09 -0500
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3799D0FD120AD940B731A37E36DAF3FE33FF2F4207@MX20A.corp.emc.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:38 PM
> To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Low hanging fruit for V.next
> 
> Here's a list culled from the wikis. These are not all equally low
> hanging and at least one may be controversial, but it's a start.
> 
> * Define XProc in terms of XPath 2.0 data models (drop XPath 1.0
> support)
> * Attribute value templates
> * Arbitrary data model fragments for parameters/options/variables
> * Data types for options and parameters
> * Support for 'depends-on'
> * Syntactic shortcuts for p:input and/or p:pipe
> * Allow variables to be visible in nested pipelines
> 
> Easy steps:
> 
> * Namespace rename step
> 
> Question: if we did these things and nothing else, what would users
> still find most irksome?

What about dealing with non-XML data? Our current base64-encoding story is not complete: it would be great, for instance, if it were possible to store binary data using p:store. At the moment, if you produce (or retrieve) base64-encoded data, you almost cannot store it without using extensions.


--
Vojtech Toman
Consultant Software Engineer
EMC | Information Intelligence Group
vojtech.toman@emc.com
http://developer.emc.com/xmltech
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 15:58:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 January 2012 15:58:15 GMT