- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:27:39 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87wt2svi5g.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: | <moz mode="acceptancy" intensity="low" condition="requirements"/> | | Imagining going further with this notation, | for consistency with | <p:validate type="XMLSchema" version="1.1" | I propose | <p:transform type="xslt" version="1.0" | so I can add DSSSL, exslt, stx, Omnimark, Balise or anything i like | without having to author a special user component (unless component | definiton language would be available for V1, which I doubt | seriously), just patching my xproc engine You can add a DSSSL component with <moz:dsssl ...> (or <p:step type="moz:dsssl">) I'm don't see how that's any easier than <p:transform type="dsssl"> | and <p:query type="xquery" version="1.0" extension="update" | so I can put xpath2, sqlx, etc... | | <moz mode="waiting-for-miracle" intensity="medium" /> Personally, I'd like separate steps for XML Schema, RELAX NG, etc., validation, but I appeared to be in the minority when I broached it. Note that if we take your train of thought to its logical conclusion, we wind up with <p:step type="xxx"> which is what we have now :-) Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh XML Standards Architect Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 14:28:22 UTC