- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:15:15 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24606 dnovatchev@gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dnovatchev@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from dnovatchev@gmail.com --- Dear WG, Please, kindly understand that not specifying useful functionality, because it *may* be implemented, is a user's hell. At present XProc doesn't mandate any streaming, and leaves this entirely to each individual implementation. >From the XProc spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#external-docs) : "Whether (and when and how) or not the intermediate results that pass between steps are ever written to a filesystem is implementation-dependent." Another recent bug resolution -- 24648 -- again leaves an important feature on the whim of a particular implementor. So, we end up with: Implementation1(Feature1) and Implementation2(Feature2). I feel sad for the user who needs both Feature1 and Feature2. Hope to have an official reply that this user's hell is what the WG really plans for us. Regards, Dimitre Novatchev -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 21:15:17 UTC