- From: Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 20:35:34 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: XProc Comments <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
On 27 sept. 2013, at 17:53, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > 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. OK, good! > >> * 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. OK. Some pipeline patterns are a PITA (excuse my french ;) without it, but I do understand the rationale behind the WG consensus. > >> 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! OK, I'll try to do a more thorough review when time allows... Romain. > > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh > Lead Engineer > MarkLogic Corporation > Phone: +1 512 761 6676 > www.marklogic.com
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 18:36:04 UTC