- From: Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex <gerrit.imsieke@le-tex.de>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:27:37 +0100
- To: xproc-dev@w3.org
On 2013-02-01 19:08, Florent Georges wrote: > Hi, > > In XSLT, if a generic stylesheet wants to offer a extension > point, where an importing stylesheet can "plug" some processing, > it can call an empty named template, that the final user can > override in his own stylesheet by providing some implementation > of it. Or anyway a user can always override a template rule. > > But in XProc, there is no import priority, and one can never > override any step. If two steps are found with the same name, > that is a static error. > > How would you then offer extension points the same way in an > XProc library? > I sometimes wish that p:import work like that. It’d be interesting to hear the WG’s reasons for choosing non-cascading (or non-inheritable), non-overwritable import. Although I don’t like it very much – because of the inevitable multiplexing/demultiplexing noise, and because it’s non-standard – I’m inclined to use Calabash’s cx:eval with a dynamically selected pipeline as an alternative extension point mechanism. Example: https://subversion.le-tex.de/common/pubcoach/trunk/xpl/evolve-hub.xpl Gerrit
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 21:28:14 UTC