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

Re: 2nd thoughts on implicit decl

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:31:58 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2txtr9a9d.fsf@nwalsh.com>
James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com> writes:
> 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
> loader').

That sounds like a hack. If there's a requirement for running steps
without explicitly importing the declaration for that step, let's
consider that.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 13:32:27 UTC

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