Re: Comments on "An Invisible XML Modularity Proposal"

Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> writes:
> Well, I am! My implementation allows 
>
>     +use xpath from https://invisiblexml.org/modules/xpath3.ixml

I bet you 

  curl https://invisiblexml.org/modules/xpath3.ixml

returns text (it returns 404 at the moment).

> and that's one of my planned use cases. One of my implementations precompiles the modules into parser-ready form.

Fair enough, but that’s an implementation detail, not a feature of Invisible XML.

> Completely disagree. Copy and paste is always available if that's what you prefer, but ixml modularisation as I envisage it is not a macro language.

RELAX NG isn’t a macro language because it allows for the judicious reuse, redeclaration, and extension of patterns.

> If you don't like a module, rewrite it, produce a better one. But a contract is a contract.

The contract for iXML grammars will be what we write it is.

> I disagree. The module should operate as a black box, with only the agreed-on interface being visible.

That’s a coherent position. I just disagree with it.

>> The semantics of “include” vary across languages: the C preprocessor, XML Schema, RELAX NG, XSLT, all have includes of one form or another. It’s not going to be confusing.
>
> I think avoiding potential confusion is a good aim.

I observe that using novel terms for common features is also a potential source of confusion.

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
CEO, Saxonica

Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2026 13:43:14 UTC