W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Proposed extension libraries

From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:04:11 +0100
Message-ID: <ebaca5bf1003291004q26f094f6s1ff6c56f4e6575fd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
On 29 March 2010 14:51, Norman Walsh wrote:

> Well, I think a processor could choose to support the fileutils
> library of extension steps without supporting any additional
> packaging system or functions.

  Of course.  But there are really two different aspects here:
the specification of extensions (and really only the spec
itself), and how to deliver components written in plain core XML
technologies (e.g. if an EXProc step can be written as a standard
XProc pipeline, or even if they are written e.g. in Java but not
as built-in in the processor).

  A processor can of course implement the spec any way it wants.
But because you were starting of speaking about packaging and
delivering (creating an XProc pipeline, putting it at this place
on a website, etc.), I think the EXPath Packaging System is a
good tool for that aspect.  And anyway that's just a ZIP file.
It is structured in such a way a processor can automatically use
some infos but a human can also open it and extract the files to
install them manually as it would do with any ZIP file for a
non-packaged delivery.

  Regards,

-- 
Florent Georges
http://www.fgeorges.org/
Received on Monday, 29 March 2010 17:05:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 29 March 2010 17:05:05 GMT