- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:49:56 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m23akqd3m3.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Florent Georges" <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> writes: >> 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)? : It's trickier in XProc because sequence matters more so than in XSLT. > 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). You can put anything you want in p:pipeinfo and you can put that anywhere you want. > 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.) Sure, you can do that. <p:declare-step type="px:my-extension" px:class="org.xproc.extensions.MyExtension"> <p:input port="source"/> <p:output port="result"/> </p:declare-step> Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Birds are taken with pipes that imitate http://nwalsh.com/ | their own voices, and men with those | sayings that are most agreeable to | their own opinions.--Samuel Butler
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 12:50:42 UTC