Re: quick review of the V2 Reqs

Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com> writes:
> I just skimmed the just-published "XProc V2.0 Requirements" draft. I
> first want express thanks and congrats to the WG; very good
> progress, I like what I'm reading.

Thanks.

> Two reqs/ideas seem to be missing from the doc:
>
>  * base URI handling (low hanging fruit)
>    http://www.w3.org/wiki/XProc_Usability_Issues#base_uri

We've just added that one. I think it will be easy to address using
the properties/metadata features that we're considering adding.

>  * reading ports from XPath
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2013Feb/0028.html

I think the consensus of the WG was not to accept this as a
requirement. Ironically, the message you're pointing to is my attempt
to explain why I (personally) don't think port reading functions are a
good idea.

And I think the prospect of adding user defined functions means the
analysis necessary could quickly become impractical.

> I don't mean to sound nagging or intrusive, just wanted to bring the
> attention in case these were simply unintentionally omitted.

Happy to have someone reviewing the requirements. Send anything you
think of!


                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676
www.marklogic.com