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

2nd thoughts on implicit decl

From: James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:18:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEaz5muYM2VcjU3tci+Md6AT1AhLhK5oKd0nEhG632AnzSBjYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
After some reflection, I have flipped flopped on my assertion that we
may need to consider implicit decl for v2.0 and will not include them
(unless others feel strongly the other way) in v2.0 doc.

The primary scenario I am interested in is allowing developers to
download step decl and then immediately use them in their pipelines
w/o the need for tedious import of decl.

On testing with xprocxq, I now think there is no need to add this as a
requirement for v2.0 as its achievable with an extension attribute and
some pipeline rewriting (or I can even imagine an extension-step 'step

Jim Fuller
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 11:19:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:51 UTC