- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:12:19 -0600
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 14:12:48 UTC
Alex MiĆowski <alex@milowski.com> writes:
> Looking at the standard step library, it occurs to me that the
> language "required" and "optional" feels a bit too constraining. We
> might consider defining steps as a module:
>
> * each set of steps would belong to a named module
> * each module would have a URI
> * there would be a required module (or set of modules) that a
> pipeline implementor must support to be considered conform ant.
>
> This would also give us the option of compartmentalizing certain XML
> micro operations vs larger operations (e.g. XSLT/XQuery) that wouldn't
> be relevant for a processor that did other content types.
I think that's an intresting idea.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676
www.marklogic.com
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 14:12:48 UTC