Re: Requirements & pragma proposal

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 12:31, Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com> wrote:
>
> Having arrived to the group late, I didn’t have any expectations for the
> pragmas proposal. It’s fairly ambitious, but it seems well designed.
>
> Intuitively, it feels like something I’d prefer to have in V1 than see
> added later.

Would you say why please Norm?

 But it also feels like it’s substantial and would take a
> fair bit of time to shake out fully. And I think the proposal is longer
> than the current ixml spec, so there’s a sense in which it feels like
> it’s adding quite a bit of complexity.

+1,


> One of the benefits of XML is that we have a extensive set of tools
> designed to query, transform, and otherwise manipulate it. They work
> well, they’re well understood, and widely available.
>
> I think one could take the philosophical position that *all* ixml needs
> to do is get non-XML data into XML. Anything you want to do after that:
> add namespaces, rename elements, insert text, etc. is an XML problem and
> ixml doesn’t need to solve it.

+10


>
> You could imagine an ixml step being a first stage of a *cough*
> pipeline, for example.

<grin/> but +1 (or something similar)


regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.

Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2021 12:35:38 UTC