- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 22:46:07 +0100
- To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 2/6/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> A couple of recent threads have indicated support for a sort of
> chameleon component that I'd just assumed we wouldn't touch with a ten
> foot pole.
>
> If
>
> <p:step type="validate">...</p:step>
>
> can do one of several different kinds of validation (XSD, RNG, SCH)
> and
>
> <p:step type="xslt">...</p:step>
>
> can perform either XSLT 1.0 or XSLT 2.0 transformations, then I
> think we have a clear need for two different types of parameters
> (which I'd been hoping, perhaps naively, that we could avoid).
>
> If we're going to go this way, I wonder if it's worth revisiting the
> names of components. Using the types as the GIs would give us two
> places to put parameters: on the element or in a p:parameter.
>
> <p:validate language="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
> ...
> </p:validate>
>
> and
>
> <p:xslt version="2.0">
> <p:param version="1.2"/>
> ...
> </p:xslt>
I hope you meant
<p:xslt version="2.0">
<p:param name="version" value="1.2"/>
...
</p:xslt>
Even if it doesn't remove any complexity to your proposal
>
> would be unambiguous.
>
> Be seeing you,
> norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh
> XML Standards Architect
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>
--
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 21:46:15 UTC