- 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