W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Calabash and http-request

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:58:41 -0500
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m2wsdr7g2m.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"David A. Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> writes:

> --- Asketh Norman
> This is either an opportunity for someone to point out why it would be
> a really bad idea to add those dependencies or fair warning that the
> next release will have them ... or both.
> ---
>
> My oppinion is that adding these depancies and advanced features is an
> slippery slope.
> If you need advanced features like cookie processing etc then you
> should be running a specialized
> tool like "wget", which can be run from xproc as an external process step.
> Its a slippery slope because "whats next" ? caching ? JavaScript ?
> ActiveX controls ?
> AJAX ? Java applets ? Silverlight ? on and on ...
> My oppinion is to keep the core functionality simple and clean and let
> people use custom external tools
> for the fancy stuff.

I see where you're going, but I think the WG has consensus that the
p:http-request step should be a fairly rich step. I also think there's
a natural answer to the questions you pose: the step should be media
type agnostic. So cookies are in, Java, ActiveX Controls, etc. are
out.

HTTP caching proxies are mostly transparent, and we're writing an
http-request step, not a http-server step, so I don't think that'll be
a problem.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | It is not failure of others to
http://nwalsh.com/            | appreciate your abilities that should
                              | trouble you, but rather your failure to
                              | appreciate theirs.-- Confucius

Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 02:59:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 December 2008 02:59:27 GMT