- From: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:55:45 +0200
- To: "Florent Georges" <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Cc: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Let me add my two cents I don't think you can compare "user-defined data element" from XSLT with XProc an XSLT document can be the result document without instruction at all, that's one goal of XSLT there is no such thing in XProc By the way, the xproc extension mechanism is based on p:pipeinfo ( http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#p.pipeinfo ) That way you can put whatever you want that is not XProc inside that element Regards, Xmlizer On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> wrote: > > 2008/8/27 Norman Walsh wrote: > > Hi > >> The only place they're allowed is in a subpipeline where they >> must have a corresponding declaration (as they must be atomic >> steps). > > So you've chosen to not reuse the concepts of "user-defined > data elements" [1] and "extension instructions" [2,3] from XSLT > (both 1.0 & 2.0)? : > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#dt-data-element > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#dt-extension-instruction > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#extension-instruction > > The former has proved very useful for little "extensions" to > the language, for example regarding documentation, or meta > information (for instance mapping from the business rules > documents). > > About the later, I don't understand comprehensively and > exactly the extension mechanism of XProc, but I can't think you > didn't allow the ability of declaring extension steps defined > in an implementation-defined way (read: in Java or whatever.) > > Regards, > > -- > Florent Georges > http://www.fgeorges.org/ > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 08:56:20 UTC